Pedigree Sigs

[Ares]

Do it!

Whats the big deal on a pedigree?

 

A 9.8 pedigree book is same as a 9.8 non pedigree.

Just because it was owned by one person is no big deal.. sign them all

[Guardian Comics]

Do it!

Whats the big deal on a pedigree?

 

A 9.8 pedigree book is same as a 9.8 non pedigree.

Just because it was owned by one person is no big deal.. sign them all

 

 

There are so many things I'd like to say to rebut this opinion

 

and

 

Jim

[comixcroz]

Do it!

Whats the big deal on a pedigree?

 

A 9.8 pedigree book is same as a 9.8 non pedigree.

Just because it was owned by one person is no big deal.. sign them all

 

Just the simple fact that the pedigrees sell for more would prove their to be an obvious value difference.

[Ares]

Do it!

Whats the big deal on a pedigree?

 

A 9.8 pedigree book is same as a 9.8 non pedigree.

Just because it was owned by one person is no big deal.. sign them all

 

 

There are so many things I'd like to say to rebut this opinion

 

and

 

Jim

 

Well you and the hirse you rode in on

[comixcroz]

Personally, I dont like sigs on any of my hg ga and sa books. Nor, would I purchase anything like that.

[mikeyboy9000]

Personally, I dont like sigs on any of my hg ga and sa books. Nor, would I purchase anything like that.

 

This is my general feeling, though if i had a HG #1 marvel i'd get stan to sign it, at that point i know it's MY book and i'm never onselling it so that's that.

 

Anything i might sell on, yes i would likely not sign in that condition for those books. After all, to me it's like writing my name on it.... nobody likes that.

 

Also the whole pedigrees are just the same as other books, well technically YES, but realistically? NO. After all, what's the difference between a toyota and a lexus? Same car, same parent company, even same parts in cases. You pay for prestige people, it's the very basis of marketing. And these 'signed' pedigrees to me have no prestige anymore.

***

'cept for the pedigree owner sigs, those i think are perfectly acceptable.

 

To me a pedigree shows that someone has put together an amazing collection and deserves recognition for it, because simply without them these books would not exist in this condition.

[Cimm]

Personally, I dont like sigs on any of my hg ga and sa books. Nor, would I purchase anything like that.

 

This is my general feeling, though if i had a HG #1 marvel i'd get stan to sign it, at that point i know it's MY book and i'm never onselling it so that's that.

 

Anything i might sell on, yes i would likely not sign in that condition for those books. After all, to me it's like writing my name on it.... nobody likes that.

 

Also the whole pedigrees are just the same as other books, well technically YES, but realistically? NO. After all, what's the difference between a toyota and a lexus? Same car, same parent company, even same parts in cases. You pay for prestige people, it's the very basis of marketing. And these 'signed' pedigrees to me have no prestige anymore.

***

'cept for the pedigree owner sigs, those i think are perfectly acceptable.

 

To me a pedigree shows that someone has put together an amazing collection and deserves recognition for it, because simply without them these books would not exist in this condition.

 

Exactly! This is what makes Pedigrees worthy of their place in the comic marketplace... when you buy one, you are buying a book with a known history, and a nicer-then-normal appearance, usually... I just bought my first pedigree, but it won't be my last!

 

EDIT:

 

As for the OP's topic... it depends on the signature, and the book, and the placement of the signature on the book... some sigs detract (for me) and others add (for me)... Frazetta's sig is almost always perfectly placed, and attractive. Stan Lee's sig is almost always in exactly the wrong place, and detractive. my

[Transplant]

I'm pretty sure I've stated my position before but here goes. If you're okay with signatures on pedigree books, then what's the point of the pedigree? Part of the problem is the proliferation of "pedigrees" in the CGC era. People have gotten used to an abundance of pedigree books being available at any given time.

 

It would be hard for someone to argue that some pedigree books aren't just a little more special than others. To me, the Church books will always be the pinnacle followed, in no particular order by Larson, Crippen, Okajima, etc. Do I care that Don Rosa signed a Rosa Collection (not pedigree) book? Not really. I don't really view the Rosa collection as very important to the history of comics.

 

Was I flabbergasted that someone would have the Church copy of Tally-Ho signed? You bet. Even more so when it was flipped shortly thereafter.

 

In a vague way, I feel that collectors have some responsibilities to the hobby and to public in general. How would you feel if someone with unlimited funds purchased all known copies of Action #1 and burned them? Think of someone buying the Mona Lisa and painting a mustache on it. Some things are historically important. People may own them but they have a duty to preserve them also.

[brasseye]

Was I flabbergasted that someone would have the Church copy of Tally-Ho signed? You bet. Even more so when it was flipped shortly thereafter.

 

In a vague way, I feel that collectors have some responsibilities to the hobby and to public in general. How would you feel if someone with unlimited funds purchased all known copies of Action #1 and burned them? Think of someone buying the Mona Lisa and painting a mustache on it. Some things are historically important. People may own them but they have a duty to preserve them also.

 

 

Pedrigees are creature of historical importance unto their own. Getting a signature on the book, no matter how relevant to the book, is simply defacing the pedigree (assuming it isn't part of the pedigree).

 

I for one would never buy a SS pedigree book, it's just wrong on so many levels, and for those to blindly ignore the obvious points of a pedigree, is just blandly turning a blind eye to a significant part of the history of back-issue collecting.

Just plain ignorance, and short-sighted motives, as shown in the MH example.

[Paratrooper]

Was I flabbergasted that someone would have the Church copy of Tally-Ho signed? You bet. Even more so when it was flipped shortly thereafter.

 

In a vague way, I feel that collectors have some responsibilities to the hobby and to public in general. How would you feel if someone with unlimited funds purchased all known copies of Action #1 and burned them? Think of someone buying the Mona Lisa and painting a mustache on it. Some things are historically important. People may own them but they have a duty to preserve them also.

 

 

Pedrigees are creature of historical importance unto their own. Getting a signature on the book, no matter how relevant to the book, is simply defacing the pedigree (assuming it isn't part of the pedigree).

 

I for one would never buy a SS pedigree book, it's just wrong on so many levels, and for those to blindly ignore the obvious points of a pedigree, is just blandly turning a blind eye to a significant part of the history of back-issue collecting.

Just plain ignorance, and short-sighted motives, as shown in the MH example.

 

Guess it was my ignorance that led me to believe that it's my fricken book and that I could do whatever I wanted with it.

[brasseye]

Was I flabbergasted that someone would have the Church copy of Tally-Ho signed? You bet. Even more so when it was flipped shortly thereafter.

 

In a vague way, I feel that collectors have some responsibilities to the hobby and to public in general. How would you feel if someone with unlimited funds purchased all known copies of Action #1 and burned them? Think of someone buying the Mona Lisa and painting a mustache on it. Some things are historically important. People may own them but they have a duty to preserve them also.

 

 

Pedrigees are creature of historical importance unto their own. Getting a signature on the book, no matter how relevant to the book, is simply defacing the pedigree (assuming it isn't part of the pedigree).

 

I for one would never buy a SS pedigree book, it's just wrong on so many levels, and for those to blindly ignore the obvious points of a pedigree, is just blandly turning a blind eye to a significant part of the history of back-issue collecting.

Just plain ignorance, and short-sighted motives, as shown in the MH example.

 

Guess it was my ignorance that led me to believe that it's my fricken book and that I could do whatever I wanted with it.

 

So you place zero value on the historical significance of the book... it was just a really expensive bunch of paper pages stapled together, with some pictures and writing scrawled over it.

Oh jeez

[Transplant]

Guess it was my ignorance that led me to believe that it's my fricken book and that I could do whatever I wanted with it.

Nobody said you couldn't. This is a discussion of opinions about the question posed. It's a straw man argument to say that anyone has said that you can't. I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether there is any book that shouldn't be signed or if you have any limit on what can be done to a something of historically important. It's a bad example I know, but would you be okay with the destruction of a privately owned copy of the Declaration of Independence?

[Paratrooper]

Was I flabbergasted that someone would have the Church copy of Tally-Ho signed? You bet. Even more so when it was flipped shortly thereafter.

 

In a vague way, I feel that collectors have some responsibilities to the hobby and to public in general. How would you feel if someone with unlimited funds purchased all known copies of Action #1 and burned them? Think of someone buying the Mona Lisa and painting a mustache on it. Some things are historically important. People may own them but they have a duty to preserve them also.

 

 

Pedrigees are creature of historical importance unto their own. Getting a signature on the book, no matter how relevant to the book, is simply defacing the pedigree (assuming it isn't part of the pedigree).

 

I for one would never buy a SS pedigree book, it's just wrong on so many levels, and for those to blindly ignore the obvious points of a pedigree, is just blandly turning a blind eye to a significant part of the history of back-issue collecting.

Just plain ignorance, and short-sighted motives, as shown in the MH example.

 

Guess it was my ignorance that led me to believe that it's my fricken book and that I could do whatever I wanted with it.

 

So you place zero value on the historical significance of the book... it was just a really expensive bunch of paper pages stapled together, with some pictures and writing scrawled over it.

Oh jeez

 

To say that a comic book 50-60 or so years old to have historical significance is laughable. It's neither a bunch of pictures..etc. It's a piece of property one buys, for collecting purposes or for investment purposes. To have other dictate to me what I can and cannot do to something I own is rude. So what if having a pedigreed book SS'd might decrease the resaleability of that book, must mean I'm doing it for collecting purposes...doesn't it?

 

should add IMO, cause I forgot to last time.

[Paratrooper]

Guess it was my ignorance that led me to believe that it's my fricken book and that I could do whatever I wanted with it.

Nobody said you couldn't. This is a discussion of opinions about the question posed. It's a straw man argument to say that anyone has said that you can't. I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether there is any book that shouldn't be signed or if you have any limit on what can be done to a something of historically important. It's a bad example I know, but would you be okay with the destruction of a privately owned copy of the Declaration of Independence?

 

Comic book "defacement" = Declaration of Independence destruction

 

lol

[Transplant]

Guess it was my ignorance that led me to believe that it's my fricken book and that I could do whatever I wanted with it.

Nobody said you couldn't. This is a discussion of opinions about the question posed. It's a straw man argument to say that anyone has said that you can't. I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether there is any book that shouldn't be signed or if you have any limit on what can be done to a something of historically important. It's a bad example I know, but would you be okay with the destruction of a privately owned copy of the Declaration of Independence?

 

Comic book "defacement" = Declaration of Independence destruction

 

lol

Well then. What about destroying all copies of Action 1? Or the original art for Amazing Fantasy 15?

[brasseye]

Was I flabbergasted that someone would have the Church copy of Tally-Ho signed? You bet. Even more so when it was flipped shortly thereafter.

 

In a vague way, I feel that collectors have some responsibilities to the hobby and to public in general. How would you feel if someone with unlimited funds purchased all known copies of Action #1 and burned them? Think of someone buying the Mona Lisa and painting a mustache on it. Some things are historically important. People may own them but they have a duty to preserve them also.

 

 

Pedrigees are creature of historical importance unto their own. Getting a signature on the book, no matter how relevant to the book, is simply defacing the pedigree (assuming it isn't part of the pedigree).

 

I for one would never buy a SS pedigree book, it's just wrong on so many levels, and for those to blindly ignore the obvious points of a pedigree, is just blandly turning a blind eye to a significant part of the history of back-issue collecting.

Just plain ignorance, and short-sighted motives, as shown in the MH example.

 

Guess it was my ignorance that led me to believe that it's my fricken book and that I could do whatever I wanted with it.

 

So you place zero value on the historical significance of the book... it was just a really expensive bunch of paper pages stapled together, with some pictures and writing scrawled over it.

Oh jeez

 

To say that a comic book 50-60 or so years old to have historical significance is laughable. It's neither a bunch of pictures..etc. It's a piece of property one buys, for collecting purposes or for investment purposes. To have other dictate to me what I can and cannot do to something I own is rude. So what if having a pedigreed book SS'd might decrease the resaleability of that book, must mean I'm doing it for collecting purposes...doesn't it?

 

should add IMO, cause I forgot to last time.

 

PT why are you in this hobby?

 

Just to make up your own rules as you see fit, because 'you own it'.

 

Or are you just bloody minded, that if someone say's yes, you have to say no... reason, logic, or common sense be damned.

 

[brasseye]

 

To say that a comic book 50-60 or so years old to have historical significance is laughable.

 

PT, please continue this annoucement on all forums... GA, SA, BA.. just a big load of bull... ala according to you.

 

Thanks, your a prized (thumbs u

[Bonds25]

Here's where I stand

 

[Bonds25]

I'm pretty sure I've stated my position before but here goes. If you're okay with signatures on pedigree books, then what's the point of the pedigree? Part of the problem is the proliferation of "pedigrees" in the CGC era. People have gotten used to an abundance of pedigree books being available at any given time.

 

It would be hard for someone to argue that some pedigree books aren't just a little more special than others. To me, the Church books will always be the pinnacle followed, in no particular order by Larson, Crippen, Okajima, etc. Do I care that Don Rosa signed a Rosa Collection (not pedigree) book? Not really. I don't really view the Rosa collection as very important to the history of comics.

 

Was I flabbergasted that someone would have the Church copy of Tally-Ho signed? You bet. Even more so when it was flipped shortly thereafter.

 

In a vague way, I feel that collectors have some responsibilities to the hobby and to public in general. How would you feel if someone with unlimited funds purchased all known copies of Action #1 and burned them? Think of someone buying the Mona Lisa and painting a mustache on it. Some things are historically important. People may own them but they have a duty to preserve them also.

 

I completely disagree and personally think the argument against signing a pedigree is kinda silly. What exactly did someone do in a pedigree collection to make it untouchable? All they did was store their books correctly which ended up keeping the book in nice condition. That's it.

 

I think it's awesome that I could get Al Feldstein, one of the original founders and artists of EC Comics, to sign my book 50 years after he drew the cover! He didn't ruin the condition by signing the book, and he didn't ruin the cover by signing the book. But to each his own - I understand the differing opinions too.

[Bonds25]

 

Pedrigees are creature of historical importance unto their own. Getting a signature on the book, no matter how relevant to the book, is simply defacing the pedigree (assuming it isn't part of the pedigree).

 

I for one would never buy a SS pedigree book, it's just wrong on so many levels, and for those to blindly ignore the obvious points of a pedigree, is just blandly turning a blind eye to a significant part of the history of back-issue collecting.

Just plain ignorance, and short-sighted motives, as shown in the MH example.

 

I think some of you take this "pedigree" thing WAY too far!