Pedigree Sigs

[Transplant]

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.

1) It's not a crime that I know of. 2) It's unfortunate when people remove the provenance from the book in whatever form: could be erasing the identifying marks, reslabbing without the pedigree notation, burning any papers that would show the history of the book, etc.

 

As an aside, I've never understood why someone would not want the pedigree notation. Supposedly, CGC grades blindly without notice of past grades for the same book. Therefore, the pedigree status would not limit the grade that could be given.

[Ares]

I didn’t mean crime as in Police or Arrest sense but in a comic Collecting CGC sense

[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.

 

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

 

The fact that it is a Pedigree designation does not change if it gets signed. So it isn't being diluted, it is however, being altered. The argument that it shouldn't be altered is a viable one, and I'm not denying it's a good one.

 

But again, he owns the book NOW... it's his property. If he doesn't accept that point and wants to get it signed it's entirely his choice. I can't say no to him if he presents it to me at a convention to get signed. I might ask "are you really sure you want to do this?"... but I think we are all in agreement that what he ends up with is definitely going to offend some purists and at the same time now appeal to others as an autographed collectible, but there is no denial that it is still a Pedigree.

 

At this point I think it's apples and oranges.

[seanfingh]

I think we are all in agreement that what he ends up with is definitely going to offend some purists and at the same time now appeal to others as an autographed collectible, but there is no denial that it is still a Pedigree.

 

 

Great point Kevin. There also appears to be a difference between those view comic owners as custodians (Nick Beckett is another who espouses this ideal) and those who view comics as property. I tend to be very strongly in the latter camp, as I vehemently believe property owners have (at least as it relates to tangible personal property) the unfettered right to do as they please with that property.

 

Once again, however, I am dismayed by the fact that name calling and acerbic comments have to be introduced into the mix.

[Paratrooper]

 

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

 

That was one funny thread! Thanks for bringing it back, man I'm hilarious!

 

Of course I do things my way, what am I going to do? Be a sheep and follow the herd like most folks?

[Unknownworlds]

I just got here and after reading all of your opinions I now have the urge to go out and buy a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. I wonder if it comes in dark chocolate.

 

 

[Kevin Boyd]

For Will, using the analogy, the chocolate in question is usually Jim Lee...

[Kevin Boyd]

Once again, however, I am dismayed by the fact that name calling and acerbic comments have to be introduced into the mix.

 

I agree Sean, we can disagree all we like on these points but there's no reason for anyone to make it personal.

 

 

[Unknownworlds]

You know me too well Kevin.

[Guest Grails]

I think we are all in agreement that what he ends up with is definitely going to offend some purists and at the same time now appeal to others as an autographed collectible, but there is no denial that it is still a Pedigree.

 

 

Great point Kevin. There also appears to be a difference between those view comic owners as custodians (Nick Beckett is another who espouses this ideal) and those who view comics as property. I tend to be very strongly in the latter camp, as I vehemently believe property owners have (at least as it relates to tangible personal property) the unfettered right to do as they please with that property.

 

Once again, however, I am dismayed by the fact that name calling and acerbic comments have to be introduced into the mix.

 

(thumbs u

 

Some just get a little bent out of shape on the signing of peds. The Declaration of Independence? That would only get a Qualified label anyway since the signings wern't approved in advance. I have no problem with having a comic (any comic) signed. To me it adds even more of a defining historical note to the book. To have the creators sign the Church copy of Action 1 would have been incredible. And in another century, if that book hasn't turned to dust, can you imagine holding the book that the creators graced? That would outweigh the original owner of the book. My opinion, gents, and I respect the strong opposition to it and I also understand their reasoning.

[Transplant]

(thumbs u

 

Some just get a little bent out of shape on the signing of peds. The Declaration of Independence? That would only get a Qualified label anyway since the signings wern't approved in advance. I have no problem with having a comic (any comic) signed. To me it adds even more of a defining historical note to the book. To have the creators sign the Church copy of Action 1 would have been incredible. And in another century, if that book hasn't turned to dust, can you imagine holding the book that the creators graced? That would outweigh the original owner of the book. My opinion, gents, and I respect the strong opposition to it and I also understand their reasoning.

 

Again. Everybody wants to just put forth the best case scenario without thinking about others. That's why I'm interested in seeing where people would draw the line. You might be comfortable with Stan Lee signing a copy of AF 15. What about Tobey Maguire signing his name over the first image of Peter Parker on the original artwork? Would everybody be okay with that? It was the owner's property until the recent donation.

 

How about Freddie Francis (directed the '72 TFtC movie) signing one of the Gaines file copies of Tales From the Crypt? Perfectly acceptable SS candidate as far as I can tell, but had no connection with the book that I know of. I'm just curious folks.

[Paratrooper]

Next paratrooper pedigree cover book I'm going to get signed will be personalized "Vaughn" just for you guys.

[Paratrooper]

(thumbs u

 

Some just get a little bent out of shape on the signing of peds. The Declaration of Independence? That would only get a Qualified label anyway since the signings wern't approved in advance. I have no problem with having a comic (any comic) signed. To me it adds even more of a defining historical note to the book. To have the creators sign the Church copy of Action 1 would have been incredible. And in another century, if that book hasn't turned to dust, can you imagine holding the book that the creators graced? That would outweigh the original owner of the book. My opinion, gents, and I respect the strong opposition to it and I also understand their reasoning.

 

Again. Everybody wants to just put forth the best case scenario without thinking about others. That's why I'm interested in seeing where people would draw the line. You might be comfortable with Stan Lee signing a copy of AF 15. What about Tobey Maguire signing his name over the first image of Peter Parker on the original artwork? Would everybody be okay with that? It was the owner's property until the recent donation.

 

How about Freddie Francis (directed the '72 TFtC movie) signing one of the Gaines file copies of Tales From the Crypt? Perfectly acceptable SS candidate as far as I can tell, but had no connection with the book that I know of. I'm just curious folks.

 

If you want to see what my "line" is for getting certain individuals to sign certain books, all you have to do is check my thread and find the pattern. Not to hard to figure out who I chose to sign what book.

[Kevin Boyd]

If I owned the original AF 15 art I would likely be hiding it somewhere with alarms and armed guards, not getting anyone to sign it. But if Ditko or Lee wanted to come by and sign it I would consider it but I would draw the line there. That's about as big of a hypothetical stretch as you could imagine.

 

A little closer to reality, if the owner had decided he/she wanted Tobey to sign it while it was in their possession, what could I or anyone else do except agree or disagree with the decision and move on with our lives? I would fall on the disagree side for that one.

 

If I came into possession of some peanut butter, sorry, a Gaines file copy I would probably have long since sold it to buy Ditko Spider-Man artwork for Tobey Maguire to potentially sign . If I had time and opportunity to SS it before I sold it, Francis would not be my first choice, but any of the surviving creators would.

[Guest Grails]

(thumbs u

 

Some just get a little bent out of shape on the signing of peds. The Declaration of Independence? That would only get a Qualified label anyway since the signings wern't approved in advance. I have no problem with having a comic (any comic) signed. To me it adds even more of a defining historical note to the book. To have the creators sign the Church copy of Action 1 would have been incredible. And in another century, if that book hasn't turned to dust, can you imagine holding the book that the creators graced? That would outweigh the original owner of the book. My opinion, gents, and I respect the strong opposition to it and I also understand their reasoning.

 

Again. Everybody wants to just put forth the best case scenario without thinking about others. That's why I'm interested in seeing where people would draw the line. You might be comfortable with Stan Lee signing a copy of AF 15. What about Tobey Maguire signing his name over the first image of Peter Parker on the original artwork? Would everybody be okay with that? It was the owner's property until the recent donation.

 

How about Freddie Francis (directed the '72 TFtC movie) signing one of the Gaines file copies of Tales From the Crypt? Perfectly acceptable SS candidate as far as I can tell, but had no connection with the book that I know of. I'm just curious folks.

 

While I may not like an actor signing a comic he had nothing to do with, I accept that there are many that do. I'm not even keen on all the Stan Lee moderns that he probably never even read. But people are free to do as they please with their property.

My own lines (preferences) are simple:

Only the writer or artist of that issue.

 

[seanfingh]

(thumbs u

 

Some just get a little bent out of shape on the signing of peds. The Declaration of Independence? That would only get a Qualified label anyway since the signings wern't approved in advance. I have no problem with having a comic (any comic) signed. To me it adds even more of a defining historical note to the book. To have the creators sign the Church copy of Action 1 would have been incredible. And in another century, if that book hasn't turned to dust, can you imagine holding the book that the creators graced? That would outweigh the original owner of the book. My opinion, gents, and I respect the strong opposition to it and I also understand their reasoning.

 

Again. Everybody wants to just put forth the best case scenario without thinking about others. That's why I'm interested in seeing where people would draw the line. You might be comfortable with Stan Lee signing a copy of AF 15. What about Tobey Maguire signing his name over the first image of Peter Parker on the original artwork? Would everybody be okay with that? It was the owner's property until the recent donation.

 

How about Freddie Francis (directed the '72 TFtC movie) signing one of the Gaines file copies of Tales From the Crypt? Perfectly acceptable SS candidate as far as I can tell, but had no connection with the book that I know of. I'm just curious folks.

 

To me, both of your examples would be unfortunate, and silly. I would never do either of them. I have not had a true Pedigree book SS'd yet, either, although I have had several Manitobas done. However, who am I to say that there is not a scenario where these autographs make sense. If Maguire's performance as Spider-Man was important to the owner of the artwork and the owner felt like adding his signature, why shouldn't he?

 

If the owner of the Gaines file copy had some type of connection to the movie that he felt was strong enough to add the director's sig to his book, why not? I may think it is dumb, but who cares. I think getting people to sign books that they didn't work on is dumb (no offense, but I do) but people do it all the time, and it appears that lots of people like it.

 

I believe that having creators sign their books and having other personailities sign books that contain characters that they have played on TV or in the movies enhances the book. It transforms the book from a simple comic to a one of a kind artwork. I know a lot of people think that is crazy and that is cool. However, I expect to receive a modicum of tact if someone is going to tell me my books are ruined or that I am a fool.

 

Having a guy like Brasseye call the trooper a tool because of his SS is plain rude. Having a living legend like Lily Renee sign that beautiful book was, in my opinion, the best thing that could have happened to it. To me, the signature is perfect and the book is enhanced. To you, most likely not so much. But at least you have the decorum to not call me a tool.

[Bonds25]

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?

 

I think having Al Feldstein sign a book he drew the cover for is different than Stan Lee signing Spider-Man #300 (a book he had NOTHING to do with). And no, I don't agree with Routh signing Action #1 or Zaid signing the litigation books. Neither of them had anything to do with the comic being signed. But, if someone wants to do that, it's their choice. I just wouldn't agree with it.

[Bonds25]

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

 

I agree.

[Bonds25]

 

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

 

I guess you glossed over the previous lesson. It should read "YOU'RE a part timer ... YOU'RE insistEnt... "

[Paratrooper]

 

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

 

I guess you glossed over the previous lesson. It should read "YOU'RE a part timer ... YOU'RE insistEnt... "

 

But he did get one thing right, I am a tool. Tool of da gov'ment that 'tis.