Pedigree Sigs

[Bonds25]

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?

 

You're right, it's a bad example.

[Bonds25]

 

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

 

And since you are being a prized , let me give you a quick spelling lesson.

 

YOU'RE means YOU ARE. As in "YOU'RE a prized ", or "YOU'RE not too intelligent". YOUR indicates possession of something, such as YOUR comics, YOUR house, etc.

 

If you're going to be a prized , at least learn to spell correctly. Thanks!! (thumbs u

[Transplant]

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.

Again, I'd like to hear people's thoughts on where you draw the line? Would it be ok to have the current president sign the Constitution? Would it be ok to have Brandon Routh sign the Mile High copy of Action 1? How about if Zaid signed the court file copies of the books in the DC vs. Fawcett litigation?

[Kevin Boyd]

I tend to look at this like a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup argument... should it be just peanut butter or can it be mixed with chocolate? For those that don't get the analogy --- along comes this pedigree book (jar of peanut butter)... and it collides with a creator who worked on the book (chocolate bar)... and boom... two taste sensations collide to creat something new... the "Reese's Peanut Butter Cup" aka the Signature Series'd Pedigree book.

 

I think a mid or low grade pedigree book signed by a creator who worked on the book, such as Stan Lee or Joe Kubert or whoever, does add something to it. Not only was it part of a great collection, but now it's also been in the hands of the creator and endorsed by them. CGC recognizes that it is a "Reese's Peanut Butter Cup" on the label --- that is, it is both a pedigree and an authenticated signature.

 

But personally, I'm violently allergic to peanut butter and I have little to no interest whatsoever in pedigree books other than the "ooooo that's cool" value when someone shows me one, and I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to obtain one. I'm more concerned with the content than who owned it before me... but I can't fault anyone else who wants to have them and enjoys it however they choose - be it by leaving it as is or if they want to get it signed.

 

As Paratrooper says, it's his book, his choice.

[Transplant]

Kevin, do you have some internal guidelines on who should be signing? Your example mentioned creators only. I'd like to hear opinions from people who don't mind pedigree SS, as to what limitations they would personally impose.

[Dollarbill]

If I were to have a pedigree signed it would be only the artist,writer or creator.

[Kevin Boyd]

Our general guideline is that there has to be an established connection between the book and the person that is signing it.

 

Either they are a creator that actually worked on it, or they created the character that is in it. In the case of non-comics folk like actors, directors, producers, etc. they have to have a connection to the comic (be it the comic was an interpretation of their film/tv show or they were in a film/tv interpretation of the comic). In some cases, if a person is mentioned in the comic they could also sign it for SS.

 

Yes, it could be argued that Brandon Routh, Dean Cain or Tom Welling could sign a copy of Action Comics 1 for Signature Series. Finding someone that wanted them to sign one would be a little trickier.

[mica]

[Paratrooper]

 

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

 

whooooo I be a prized whoooooooooooo

[Dollarbill]

 

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

 

whooooo I be a prized whoooooooooooo

 

[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.

 

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.

 

Because I enjoy the comics themselves. I read them as a kid, and still do, but I also enjoy a goal oriented hobby (it should be obvious as to what that is by now). I don't take collecting comics seriously, it's a hobby. I DO take my job seriously, I take my soldier's lives and well being seriously, I take my physical health seriously.

 

To put down, degrade, demean..whatever..somebody's idea of what this hobby means to them, or HOW they collect is retarded. And as far as a standardized "rule" of how people should handle their own COMICS is also retarded. If you are sooooo offended by folks getting "pedigreed" books signed by the individuals responsible for creating that comic in the first place, I suggest you find another hobby. And why the hell should I care who owned the comic in my possession before me?

 

These are my thoughts, and my reason for being in this hobby. It's fun, it brings back memories of my childhood, and I like reading a comic from time to time.

[brasseye]

But personally, I'm violently allergic to peanut butter and I have little to no interest whatsoever in pedigree books other than the "ooooo that's cool" value when someone shows me one, and I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to obtain one. I'm more concerned with the content than who owned it before me... but I can't fault anyone else who wants to have them and enjoys it however they choose - be it by leaving it as is or if they want to get it signed.

 

As Paratrooper says, it's his book, his choice.

 

I agree whole heartedly with you, but for the fact that it can't be undone. If PT wants a book signed fantastic, but with ped's they are generally the only copy of a given issue.

So having it signed inflicts his will on countless possible future owners, it irriversible. So it's not his will, it's his will in perpetuity... which is something altogether different, and escaping all arguments for having peds SS'd.

[Transplant]

Past discussions:

 

Here.

 

Here.

 

 

[akaSteveRogers]

All this pedigree talk has made me wondering... is there a book or web article/site that gets into Pedigree and their significance in-depth?

 

Thx.

 

[brasseye]

 

PT why are you in this hobby?

 

 

Because I enjoy the comics themselves. I read them as a kid, and still do, but I also enjoy a goal oriented hobby (it should be obvious as to what that is by now). I don't take collecting comics seriously, it's a hobby. I DO take my job seriously, I take my soldier's lives and well being seriously, I take my physical health seriously.

 

To put down, degrade, demean..whatever..somebody's idea of what this hobby means to them, or HOW they collect is retarded. And as far as a standardized "rule" of how people should handle their own COMICS is also retarded. If you are sooooo offended by folks getting "pedigreed" books signed by the individuals responsible for creating that comic in the first place, I suggest you find another hobby. And why the hell should I care who owned the comic in my possession before me?

 

These are my thoughts, and my reason for being in this hobby. It's fun, it brings back memories of my childhood, and I like reading a comic from time to time.

 

Aha, keep talking.

 

Your a part timer by words, and action, but yet your insistant on carving things up your way... what a tool

[Kevin Boyd]

But personally, I'm violently allergic to peanut butter and I have little to no interest whatsoever in pedigree books other than the "ooooo that's cool" value when someone shows me one, and I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to obtain one. I'm more concerned with the content than who owned it before me... but I can't fault anyone else who wants to have them and enjoys it however they choose - be it by leaving it as is or if they want to get it signed.

 

As Paratrooper says, it's his book, his choice.

 

I agree whole heartedly with you, but for the fact that it can't be undone. If PT wants a book signed fantastic, but with ped's they are generally the only copy of a given issue.

So having it signed inflicts his will on countless possible future owners, it irriversible. So it's not his will, it's his will in perpetuity... which is something altogether different, and escaping all arguments for having peds SS'd.

 

Well, there's something to be said about the "custodian" argument, although I hear that used more often when I'm with Original Art collectors. That argument being that the current owner is merely the person who owns the item NOW... and that it will eventually move into the hands of another collector when the current owner decides to sell it... or, dare I say it, passes on and the items are sold by the collector's family.

 

I still don't think having it signed really affects the Pedigree aspect, which continues to be recognized whether it is signed or not. The only people it affects are those who are vehemently opposed to Pedigree books being signed. In some respects, what he's doing is adding new history to the book. Instead of the Pedigree being put in a box for X number of months or years until it is resold, he's adding another chapter to the story of that book --- on this date, this Crippen copy of Our Army at War met the comics artist Joe Kubert, and Joe signed it. Now it's no longer just the one book that this collector once had in his collection, but it now has an additional connection to the person that created the work itself.

 

As a historian (that is a person interested in history and a degree that backs it up) I find that a lot more interesting than doing nothing with it for ten years and then reselling it.... and it's not like Paratrooper is writing his OWN name on the book, which I really would consider to be inflicting his will/leaving his mark... which is kind of funny, because most of the bigger pedigrees have just that kind of identifying mark on it from the original owner.

 

[brasseye]

But personally, I'm violently allergic to peanut butter and I have little to no interest whatsoever in pedigree books other than the "ooooo that's cool" value when someone shows me one, and I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to obtain one. I'm more concerned with the content than who owned it before me... but I can't fault anyone else who wants to have them and enjoys it however they choose - be it by leaving it as is or if they want to get it signed.

 

As Paratrooper says, it's his book, his choice.

 

I agree whole heartedly with you, but for the fact that it can't be undone. If PT wants a book signed fantastic, but with ped's they are generally the only copy of a given issue.

So having it signed inflicts his will on countless possible future owners, it irriversible. So it's not his will, it's his will in perpetuity... which is something altogether different, and escaping all arguments for having peds SS'd.

 

Well, there's something to be said about the "custodian" argument, although I hear that used more often when I'm with Original Art collectors. That argument being that the current owner is merely the person who owns the item NOW... and that it will eventually move into the hands of another collector when the current owner decides to sell it... or, dare I say it, passes on and the items are sold by the collector's family.

 

I still don't think having it signed really affects the Pedigree aspect, which continues to be recognized whether it is signed or not. The only people it affects are those who are vehemently opposed to Pedigree books being signed. In some respects, what he's doing is adding new history to the book. Instead of the Pedigree being put in a box for X number of months or years until it is resold, he's adding another chapter to the story of that book --- on this date, this Crippen copy of Our Army at War met the comics artist Joe Kubert, and Joe signed it. As a historian (that is a person interested in history and a degree that backs it up) I find that a lot more interesting than doing nothing with it for ten years and then reselling it.... and it's not like Paratrooper is writing his OWN name on the book, which I really would consider to be inflicting his will/leaving his mark... which is kind of funny, because most of the bigger pedigrees have just that kind of identifying mark on it from the original owner.

 

Yes that is all true, and somwhat attractive, but it doesn't ignore the fact that the next owner has that choice taken away from them. The likes of PT and so, harping on about 'his books', 'his choice', when he directly taking that choice from other's when doing it to a ped book. Like I said, 99 times out of 100 they are one off's, just like the art. So the art agument is a good one. And a rational that should be applied to ped books.

 

[Kevin Boyd]

The major difference between OA and a Pedigree is of course, that the OA originated with the creator so there is already that personal connection.

 

[brasseye]

The major difference between OA and a Pedigree is of course, that the OA originated with the creator so there is already that personal connection.

 

An exactly the same with Peds, the books 'originated' with the Ped owner, to SS them, is to alter or dilute that aspect, no?

[Ares]

So would it be a crime to buy a pedigree book. Crack the slab and submit it for a Sig but not let them know it was a pedigree or no sig hoping for a higher grade?

 

Its still the same book just the label missing.