• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

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

Started by Ares,

168 posts in this topic

AlexH

AlexH

Posted
Posted
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

 

:sorry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Transplant

Transplant

Posted
Posted
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.

 

And I respect that you respect my opinion as I respect yours. It's a respect-fest. But seriously, I think your last sentence should be corrected to read:

 

I respect that you disagree, I truly do, but I and, I suspect, a lot of other people in this particular forum believe otherwise.

 

And I notice that no one has answered the question about any of the other people involved in the movies. It's all a sliding scale of what people are comfortable with. We're just in different places on the scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MedicAR

MedicAR

Posted
Posted
And I notice that no one has answered the question about any of the other people involved in the movies. It's all a sliding scale of what people are comfortable with. We're just in different places on the scale.

 

I'm assuming we're still talking about the Clarke book? If so, having the actors sign it makes as much sense as having Jim Lee sign the Tally Ho. They came along after the creation of the original work, so I wouldn't have them sign it. The book (2001, A Space Odyssey) wouldn't exist as we know it without Clarke, just as Tally Ho wouldn't exist as we know it if not for Frazetta. They created the work, so I would be very comfortable with having them sign it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted

I have been reading through this thread and some things bugged me a little.

 

First, it's great that Mr. Church bought this book and preserved it. That's wonderful.

However, I saw several posts in this thread stating that the fact that he preserved this book is the reason that it can not be signed, etc.

 

If preservation buys the right to determine the books ultimate destiny, then we should look at who has preserved this copy of Tally Ho.

 

Between the book's sale date and Chuck buying the collection was about 32.5 years. (December 1944 to early 1977).

 

From early 1977 to July 2009 is about 32.5 years.

 

This book has now been preserved by others just as long as Edgar had them stacked in his barn.

 

So if preservation imbues the right of the perserver to determine the future control of the books condition then Mr. Church's claim just might have run up against it's statute of limitations.

 

With as many pedigrees as have come into existence (dozens as of this writing) the aura of them all has become watered down. At this point pedigrees stand more as an indicator of the quality of the book you are looking at rather than some mystical lineage that cannot be broken.

 

Just saying this isn't the same as burning, dousing, or tearing up a historic piece. It's just not. It's the signature of one of it's creators, one of the LEGENDS in the field. The fact that he worked on this book is one of the only reasons anyone even wants a copy. It's a Tally Ho for cripes sake. The reason it's a 9.6 is because even Edgar never wanted to read it.

 

C

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dollarbill

Dollarbill

Posted
Posted
I have been reading through this thread and some things bugged me a little.

 

First, it's great that Mr. Church bought this book and preserved it. That's wonderful.

However, I saw several posts in this thread stating that the fact that he preserved this book is the reason that it can not be signed, etc.

 

If preservation buys the right to determine the books ultimate destiny, then we should look at who has preserved this copy of Tally Ho.

 

Between the book's sale date and Chuck buying the collection was about 32.5 years. (December 1944 to early 1977).

 

From early 1977 to July 2009 is about 32.5 years.

 

This book has now been preserved by others just as long as Edgar had them stacked in his barn.

 

So if preservation imbues the right of the perserver to determine the future control of the books condition then Mr. Church's claim just might have run up against it's statute of limitations.

 

With as many pedigrees as have come into existence (dozens as of this writing) the aura of them all has become watered down. At this point pedigrees stand more as an indicator of the quality of the book you are looking at rather than some mystical lineage that cannot be broken.

 

Just saying this isn't the same as burning, dousing, or tearing up a historic piece. It's just not. It's the signature of one of it's creators, one of the LEGENDS in the field. The fact that he worked on this book is one of the only reasons anyone even wants a copy. It's a Tally Ho for cripes sake. The reason it's a 9.6 is because even Edgar never wanted to read it.

 

C

 

 

:applause:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
metropoliscomics

metropoliscomics

Posted
Posted

I remember the following situation that occurred at a NY convention sometime in the late 1970's. Gary Dolgoff had a decent Batman #1 at a show which he was showing to Bob Kane. Dolgoff turns away for a moment to help a customer. When he turns around, he sees that Bob Kane has taken out his pen and is in the process of signing the cover "Best Wishes, Bob Kane."

 

Dolgoff turned green. He looked like he wanted to deck Bob Kane. Kane tells Dolgoff that he has just added $500 to the value of the book. Dolgoff was speechless.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlexH

AlexH

Posted
Posted
I remember the following situation that occurred at a NY convention sometime in the late 1970's. Gary Dolgoff had a decent Batman #1 at a show which he was showing to Bob Kane. Dolgoff turns away for a moment to help a customer. When he turns around, he sees that Bob Kane has taken out his pen and is in the process of signing the cover "Best Wishes, Bob Kane."

 

Dolgoff turned green. He looked like he wanted to deck Bob Kane. Kane tells Dolgoff that he has just added $500 to the value of the book. Dolgoff was speechless.

 

 

 

 

 

That's awesome. :applause:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ivegotneatstuff

ivegotneatstuff

Posted
Posted
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2009/07/edgar_church_is_rolling_over_i.html

large_tally.jpg

 

Edgar Church Is Rolling Over in His Grave

by Steve Duin, The Oregonian

Wednesday July 01, 2009, 8:35 AM

 

The Mile High copy of Tally-Ho Comics just popped up on eBay. As part of CGC's "Signature Series," it is marred -- and I do mean desecrated -- by Frank Frazetta's signature on the cover.

 

his is the second Mile High I've seen similarly shanghaied by the laughable notion that the "first professional work" of an artist inside the book is more significant than the fact that the comic was once part of Edgar Church's collection; ComicLink recently touted the Wings #56 Mile High with Gene Colan's signature in gold ink.

 

I don't know a single Golden Age collector who believes the value of a comic is enhanced by the autograph of the artist. I wonder how many more Mile Highs will be trashed before these dealers figure that out

 

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

 

Hmm.... should I send him a cease and desist for not giving me a credit for the use of my scan/photograph in his article?

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2009/07/edgar_church_is_rolling_over_i.html

 

 

 

:roflmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lebowski

Lebowski

Posted
Posted
Hmm.... should I send him a cease and desist for not giving me a credit for the use of my scan/photograph in his article?

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2009/07/edgar_church_is_rolling_over_i.html

 

 

 

:roflmao:

 

I know it's in jest, but I believe you've actually hit upon something. If they did not get permission to use your image, then they cannot use it legally.

 

I'm all for it if it already wasn't such goood publicity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Transplant

Transplant

Posted
Posted
Hmm.... should I send him a cease and desist for not giving me a credit for the use of my scan/photograph in his article?

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2009/07/edgar_church_is_rolling_over_i.html

 

 

 

:roflmao:

 

I know it's in jest, but I believe you've actually hit upon something. If they did not get permission to use your image, then they cannot use it legally.

 

I'm all for it if it already wasn't such goood publicity.

A serious response to a not so serious comment is that journalists are allowed "fair use" of copyrighted images. And that's assuming that this image is actually his to "own".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ares

Ares

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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

 

:sorry:

Its OK

you werent trying to be rude

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lebowski

Lebowski

Posted
Posted
Hmm.... should I send him a cease and desist for not giving me a credit for the use of my scan/photograph in his article?

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2009/07/edgar_church_is_rolling_over_i.html

 

 

 

:roflmao:

 

I know it's in jest, but I believe you've actually hit upon something. If they did not get permission to use your image, then they cannot use it legally.

 

I'm all for it if it already wasn't such goood publicity.

A serious response to a not so serious comment is that journalists are allowed "fair use" of copyrighted images. And that's assuming that this image is actually his to "own".

 

I'm not fully informed on the full extent of the copyright laws. It just seemed like there might be the possibility of a case. I would gladly defer to someone more informed than myself on the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Transplant

Transplant

Posted
Posted
Hmm.... should I send him a cease and desist for not giving me a credit for the use of my scan/photograph in his article?

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2009/07/edgar_church_is_rolling_over_i.html

 

 

 

:roflmao:

 

I know it's in jest, but I believe you've actually hit upon something. If they did not get permission to use your image, then they cannot use it legally.

 

I'm all for it if it already wasn't such goood publicity.

A serious response to a not so serious comment is that journalists are allowed "fair use" of copyrighted images. And that's assuming that this image is actually his to "own".

 

I'm not fully informed on the full extent of the copyright laws. It just seemed like there might be the possibility of a case. I would gladly defer to someone more informed than myself on the issue.

Me too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing