Edgar Church Rolling Over in Grave,Mile High copy of Tally-Ho Comics Desecrated?

[seanfingh]

Let's take another swing at an analogy (like my baseball pun?).

 

Say you have a copy of Arthur C. Clarke's "2001" and that specific copy was taken on Apollo XI to the moon. It is the first fictional book to have ever visited the moon. It comes home and is sold, by whatever astronaut brought it to the moon, to a space memorabilia collector. He cares for it and has it encapsulated with CGC (who now does books). Later he sells it another collector. That new owner has Clarke do a SS signing of the book. Should we care that the first fictional book to ever travel to the moon has now been signed by the author? Was there any reason to have that particular copy signed vs. a copy in better condition or a first print of the same book?

 

What if instead of having it SS'd by Clarke, the owner had let (Keir Dullea - Dave Bowman in the film) sign it instead? How about Roy Scheider from 2010? Is there no credence whatsoever to the idea that certain objects have historical importance due to their provenance?

 

Mike, I promise you, I am not just being contrary, but I would have Arthur C. Clarke sign that book in a heartbeat. The difference between you and I is that you believe a signature defaces a book and I believe that it enhances it. A book with that provenance, to me, is only made better by having its creator lend his signature to it. I respect that you disagree, I truly do, but I and, I suspect, a lot of other people believe otherwise.

[Lebowski]

Let's take another swing at an analogy (like my baseball pun?).

 

Say you have a copy of Arthur C. Clarke's "2001" and that specific copy was taken on Apollo XI to the moon. It is the first fictional book to have ever visited the moon. It comes home and is sold, by whatever astronaut brought it to the moon, to a space memorabilia collector. He cares for it and has it encapsulated with CGC (who now does books). Later he sells it another collector. That new owner has Clarke do a SS signing of the book. Should we care that the first fictional book to ever travel to the moon has now been signed by the author? Was there any reason to have that particular copy signed vs. a copy in better condition or a first print of the same book?

 

What if instead of having it SS'd by Clarke, the owner had let (Keir Dullea - Dave Bowman in the film) sign it instead? How about Roy Scheider from 2010? Is there no credence whatsoever to the idea that certain objects have historical importance due to their provenance?

 

Mike, I promise you, I am not just being contrary, but I would have Arthur C. Clarke sign that book in a heartbeat. The difference between you and I is that you believe a signature defaces a book and I believe that it enhances it. A book with that provenance, to me, is only made better by having its creator lend his signature to it. I respect that you disagree, I truly do, but I and, I suspect, a lot of other people believe otherwise.

 

Sean, I hate to say this...

 

I agree with you 100%.

[slym2none]

Let's take another swing at an analogy (like my baseball pun?).

 

Say you have a copy of Arthur C. Clarke's "2001" and that specific copy was taken on Apollo XI to the moon. It is the first fictional book to have ever visited the moon. It comes home and is sold, by whatever astronaut brought it to the moon, to a space memorabilia collector. He cares for it and has it encapsulated with CGC (who now does books). Later he sells it another collector. That new owner has Clarke do a SS signing of the book. Should we care that the first fictional book to ever travel to the moon has now been signed by the author? Was there any reason to have that particular copy signed vs. a copy in better condition or a first print of the same book?

 

What if instead of having it SS'd by Clarke, the owner had let (Keir Dullea - Dave Bowman in the film) sign it instead? How about Roy Scheider from 2010? Is there no credence whatsoever to the idea that certain objects have historical importance due to their provenance?

 

Mike, I promise you, I am not just being contrary, but I would have Arthur C. Clarke sign that book in a heartbeat. The difference between you and I is that you believe a signature defaces a book and I believe that it enhances it. A book with that provenance, to me, is only made better by having its creator lend his signature to it. I respect that you disagree, I truly do, but I and, I suspect, a lot of other people believe otherwise.

 

Sean, I hate to say this...

 

I agree with you 100%.

 

+2

 

 

 

-slym (well, maybe not the hate part, but you get his drift)

[Ares]

Let's take another swing at an analogy (like my baseball pun?).

 

Say you have a copy of Arthur C. Clarke's "2001" and that specific copy was taken on Apollo XI to the moon. It is the first fictional book to have ever visited the moon. It comes home and is sold, by whatever astronaut brought it to the moon, to a space memorabilia collector. He cares for it and has it encapsulated with CGC (who now does books). Later he sells it another collector. That new owner has Clarke do a SS signing of the book. Should we care that the first fictional book to ever travel to the moon has now been signed by the author? Was there any reason to have that particular copy signed vs. a copy in better condition or a first print of the same book?

 

What if instead of having it SS'd by Clarke, the owner had let (Keir Dullea - Dave Bowman in the film) sign it instead? How about Roy Scheider from 2010? Is there no credence whatsoever to the idea that certain objects have historical importance due to their provenance?

 

Mike, I promise you, I am not just being contrary, but I would have Arthur C. Clarke sign that book in a heartbeat. The difference between you and I is that you believe a signature defaces a book and I believe that it enhances it. A book with that provenance, to me, is only made better by having its creator lend his signature to it. I respect that you disagree, I truly do, but I and, I suspect, a lot of other people believe otherwise.

 

Sean, I hate to say this...

 

I agree with you 100%.

 

+2

 

 

 

-slym (well, maybe not the hate part, but you get his drift)

 

+3

[ivegotneatstuff]

I love the book and I love the sig....I just wish Frazetta took the time to sign the book in a decent area. He almost couldn't have picked a worse area on the cover to sign with a light colored pen (or is it pencil?)

 

 

You're right.. I think I'll crack it out and have him sign it again!

 

[ivegotneatstuff]

Let's take another swing at an analogy (like my baseball pun?).

 

Say you have a copy of Arthur C. Clarke's "2001" and that specific copy was taken on Apollo XI to the moon. It is the first fictional book to have ever visited the moon. It comes home and is sold, by whatever astronaut brought it to the moon, to a space memorabilia collector. He cares for it and has it encapsulated with CGC (who now does books). Later he sells it another collector. That new owner has Clarke do a SS signing of the book. Should we care that the first fictional book to ever travel to the moon has now been signed by the author? Was there any reason to have that particular copy signed vs. a copy in better condition or a first print of the same book?

 

What if instead of having it SS'd by Clarke, the owner had let (Keir Dullea - Dave Bowman in the film) sign it instead? How about Roy Scheider from 2010? Is there no credence whatsoever to the idea that certain objects have historical importance due to their provenance?

 

Let's take another swing at an analogy (like my baseball pun?).

 

Say you have a copy of Arthur C. Clarke's "2001" and that specific copy was taken on Apollo XI to the moon. It is the first fictional book to have ever visited the moon. It comes home and is sold, by whatever astronaut brought it to the moon, to a space memorabilia collector. He cares for it and has it encapsulated with CGC (who now does books). Later he sells it another collector. That new owner has Clarke do a SS signing of the book. Should we care that the first fictional book to ever travel to the moon has now been signed by the author? Was there any reason to have that particular copy signed vs. a copy in better condition or a first print of the same book?

 

What if instead of having it SS'd by Clarke, the owner had let (Keir Dullea - Dave Bowman in the film) sign it instead? How about Roy Scheider from 2010? Is there no credence whatsoever to the idea that certain objects have historical importance due to their provenance?

 

 

****************************************************

OK - I'm chiming in again.. and I actually like this analogy.. because it gives me an awesome idea... I'm going to send the church copy of Tally Ho on the next space shuttle..and have William Shatner sign it too! Thanks!!

 

(No seriously, I like the analogy.. and I had dinner next to Roy once in Bridgehampton NY and I think I would have had him sign it ... but it would have had Steak Frites stains on it too...is that ok?)

 

ahh anyhew.. I'll stop cracking jokes and be serious. I just want to point out something.. Just because Clarke signed it, it STILL is the book that traveled to the moon... (I refer you to my earlier post below)...but I do think an object of that significance should be in the Smithsonian - unsigned by anyone..and in this analogy I agree. However, we are talking about a comic book here that was part of a collection he amassed due to some anal tendency to collect things and keep them really neat.. not some amazing human endeavor like space travel...so I understand your point, but I don't think comics and the people who collected them rise to that level (except the ones that I own..)

 

 

 

[NYComics]

[THE_BEYONDER]

Why not just have the book signed on the interior page that the artist worked on?

[Ares]

Why not just have the book signed on the interior page that the artist worked on?

 

I think the guy who wrote article would be pissed no matter where it was signed.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Why not just have the book signed on the interior page that the artist worked on?

 

I think the guy who wrote article would be pissed no matter where it was signed.

 

The guy should have bought the book when it was still a Blue label if he's so concerned about preserving it.

[AlexH]

I think people are missing the big point. This is just paper that had stuff printed on it. Some guy kept it in good condition, and now it has a value to certain people. Is it valuable to everyone? No. I am sure a number of my friends wouldn't pay any money for it as it has no perceived value to them.

 

Conversly, there are people who think signatures increase the value of a book, not destroy it. But in the grand scheme of things, it is just paper that people have assigned a value to. There are more important things in the world such as family (and no Ares, I am not saying you should take a pen and start autographing your grand mother).

 

This was most likely done by someone that is trying to increase the perceived value of this book to sell it. Which is his/her perogative. It is their property as they paid for it. Unless it was a museum piece, and on loan, then it is owned by that person and they can do whatever they want with it or to it.

 

And for the record, the definition of caretaker: a custodian who is hired to take care of something (property or a person).

 

[Lebowski]

So we get paid now to own our comics?!

 

Somebody owes me some cash...

[rjpb]

If this example causes such a dust-up, I'd love to see what would happen if someone had a Church book signed with a personal message, like:

 

To_______

 

My biggest fan

 

x_____________

 

 

 

 

 

heads would explode!

[Lebowski]

 

Hell yeah they would!

[ivegotneatstuff]

So we get paid now to own our comics?!

 

Somebody owes me some cash...

 

[ivegotneatstuff]

If this example causes such a dust-up, I'd love to see what would happen if someone had a Church book signed with a personal message, like:

 

To_______

 

My biggest fan

 

x_____________

 

 

 

 

 

heads would explode!

 

yeah.. I think that would be taking it a bit too far..but I still think owners can do whatever they want with the books they own. If there are collectors out there that feel differently, they should pool all their money and buy the books...and donate them to the Smithsonian

[MedicAR]

Let's take another swing at an analogy (like my baseball pun?).

 

Say you have a copy of Arthur C. Clarke's "2001" and that specific copy was taken on Apollo XI to the moon. It is the first fictional book to have ever visited the moon. It comes home and is sold, by whatever astronaut brought it to the moon, to a space memorabilia collector. He cares for it and has it encapsulated with CGC (who now does books). Later he sells it another collector. That new owner has Clarke do a SS signing of the book. Should we care that the first fictional book to ever travel to the moon has now been signed by the author? Was there any reason to have that particular copy signed vs. a copy in better condition or a first print of the same book?

 

What if instead of having it SS'd by Clarke, the owner had let (Keir Dullea - Dave Bowman in the film) sign it instead? How about Roy Scheider from 2010? Is there no credence whatsoever to the idea that certain objects have historical importance due to their provenance?

 

I would kill for a book like that! And to have Clarke sign it is a huge bonus!

[Ares]

There are more important things in the world such as family (and no Ares, I am not saying you should take a pen and start autographing your grand mother).

My grandmother passed away years ago thank you very much

[Skynwalker]

If this example causes such a dust-up, I'd love to see what would happen if someone had a Church book signed with a personal message, like:

 

To_______

 

My biggest fan

 

x_____________

 

 

 

 

 

heads would explode!

 

yeah.. I think that would be taking it a bit too far..but I still think owners can do whatever they want with the books they own. If there are collectors out there that feel differently, they should pool all their money and buy the books...and donate them to Skynwalker

Fixed that for you

[MedicAR]

No the Model T's owners are no longer here but I don't see many people rushing to insert Pioneer Sound Systems to enjoy them better.

 

Jim

 

So your own analogy doesn't work.

 

As for people being able to do whatever they want with their "property". It isn't their property, they may own it, but if you care about the hobby then you must realize that you are really only a caretaker of the book. Unlike houses, and cars and furniture, you OWN that becuase you will outlive it, a Mile High you will not.

 

 

The original owner did not outlive it as you stated. Nor did the owner of the house nor the owner of the furniture. These are all just things, regardless of who the previous owner might have been or how they may have kept the items. .

 

And putting a Pioneer sound system is closer to having Jim Lee sign the Tally Ho book. It just doesn't make sense.

 

Sean summed all of this up pretty well.

 

Mike, I promise you, I am not just being contrary...... The difference between you and I is that you believe a signature defaces a book and I believe that it enhances it. A book with that provenance, to me, is only made better by having its creator lend his signature to it. I respect that you disagree, I truly do, but I and, I suspect, a lot of other people believe otherwise.