Signed Pedigrees.....Good, Bad, or Just Plain Ugly?

[MedicAR]

There's been quite the discussion in the Signature Room about signed pedigrees. What do you think?

 

This is less about who is right or wrong than it is about getting opinions outside of a forum dedicated to signed books.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dollarbill]

It's your book, do as you will (thumbs u

[comix4fun]

Great idea for a poll.

 

I would make one addition and it involves the book in question.

 

I have a feeling most folks might be up in arms about an Action 1 or Tec 27 (pedigree or not) getting signed. However if the book were....ummm...I dunno...A Tally Ho #1...they might not care so much.

 

Just saying, to many folks certain books are always off limits.

 

C

 

[Transplant]

I think that putting the choice of "It's your book, do what you will" is a false choice. I don't think that anyone has said you CAN'T have it signed. If you own it, you can do with it what you want. The question is whether the collecting community thinks you SHOULD. This poll is already flawed.

[MedicAR]

I think that putting the choice of "It's your book, do what you will" is a false choice. I don't think that anyone has said you CAN'T have it signed. If you own it, you can do with it what you want. The question is whether the collecting community thinks you SHOULD. This poll is already flawed.

 

The choice was meant as "It's your book, I don't care what you do with it."

[somewhereintexas]

I think that putting the choice of "It's your book, do what you will" is a false choice. I don't think that anyone has said you CAN'T have it signed. If you own it, you can do with it what you want. The question is whether the collecting community thinks you SHOULD. This poll is already flawed.

 

I don't think that's right. That's just like saying I should have steak for dinner instead of chicken. It's a matter of personal choice. Probably even those that most strongly support a pedigree book being signed would not argue that anyone SHOULD get it signed. The question is whether it is an acceptable practice.

[Lebowski]

Do what you will. (thumbs u

 

The only reason I didn't choose the first one is that I don't want to pay 1.5X-3X what the book normally goes for in a certain grade just because a certain someone owned it in the past.

[ivegotneatstuff]

I'm so glad someone is doing this poll...

 

 

 

[slym2none]

It's your book, do as you will (thumbs u

 

Exactly - the fact that it's a pedigree that was later signed doesn't take away or even diminish the fact that it is still the same pedigree copy.

 

 

 

-slym

[Mike Bray]

seems that every poll lately has left out the crack option i want my crack

 

 

on the serious side -- personally i might get a lower grade ped. book signed something like a 8.0 or less -- but i would also be particular about placement of the sig and all

[Old Fashion PB and J]

I do not agree with pedigrees being altered in ANY way. If the book is altered the designation should become a moot point since the history of the book has been altered.

[Old Fashion PB and J]

And FYI. A pedigree signed by one of its creators makes no real sense to me as an answer. The creator has nothing to do with the designation of said collection.

[BlowUpTheMoon]

I agree 100% - there's been a lot of missing crack options.

 

Also, it's entirely a case-by-case basis, depending on the book.

[slym2none]

If the book is altered the designation should become a moot point since the history of the book has been altered.

 

I have to ask, and I am not doing so in an aggressive manner:

 

How has it changed?

 

Let's use the theoretical Michael Jackson pedigree: if this was to ever happen, and I bought his copy of Alf #48 CGC 9.6, then had it signed by the cover artist, how is this book not still the copy that Michael Jackson used to own? (Note to all - there is no MJ pedigree, I have no idea if he owned any Alf comics, this was all made up for this post.)

 

And FYI. A pedigree signed by one of its creators makes no real sense to me as an answer.

 

No problem, that's your prerogative.

 

The creator has nothing to do with the designation of said collection.

 

I even agree with this statement, "the designation" being the pedigree. But, the creator had something to do with the book, and that is what makes the difference. I can understand not wanting Stan Lee to sign a SA DC pedigree book, but if someone has a pedigreed early ASM or FF, then it is relevant.

 

 

 

-slym

[Guest Grails]

I do not agree with pedigrees being altered in ANY way. If the book is altered the designation should become a moot point since the history of the book has been altered.

 

Unless you have a time machine, the history of the book will not be altered.

[DarkKnightReturns]

I do not agree with pedigrees being altered in ANY way. If the book is altered the designation should become a moot point since the history of the book has been altered.

 

I think this is actually the best point I've heard so far. I don't think I'd want a pedigree book if it wasn't the org owner like Church that had gotten the book signed. It does change the history of the book because now you need to explain to the next buyer "yes I got it signed, not Mr. Church"

[Guest Grails]

I do not agree with pedigrees being altered in ANY way. If the book is altered the designation should become a moot point since the history of the book has been altered.

 

I think this is actually the best point I've heard so far. I don't think I'd want a pedigree book if it wasn't the org owner like Church that had gotten the book signed. It does change the history of the book because now you need to explain to the next buyer "yes I got it signed, not Mr. Church"

 

Once again, you can not change history. Also, I'm pretty sure you won't need to explain to the buyer that Edgar Church didn't have the book SS'd.

[slym2none]

I do not agree with pedigrees being altered in ANY way. If the book is altered the designation should become a moot point since the history of the book has been altered.

 

I think this is actually the best point I've heard so far. I don't think I'd want a pedigree book if it wasn't the org owner like Church that had gotten the book signed. It does change the history of the book because now you need to explain to the next buyer "yes I got it signed, not Mr. Church"

 

Once again, you can not change history. Also, I'm pretty sure you won't need to explain to the buyer that Edgar Church didn't have the book SS'd.

 

 

Between that and the date of each signature, if more than one sig was done on different dates, is printed right on the yellow label.

 

 

 

-slym

[DarkKnightReturns]

I do not agree with pedigrees being altered in ANY way. If the book is altered the designation should become a moot point since the history of the book has been altered.

 

I think this is actually the best point I've heard so far. I don't think I'd want a pedigree book if it wasn't the org owner like Church that had gotten the book signed. It does change the history of the book because now you need to explain to the next buyer "yes I got it signed, not Mr. Church"

 

Once again, you can not change history. Also, I'm pretty sure you won't need to explain to the buyer that Edgar Church didn't have the book SS'd.

 

Hey you never know. Some people know very little about pedigrees.

 

Edgar buys book, Chuckles acquires book after its sat many years in a beautiful state. Its sent to CGC and gets the ped. Years later a signature is added by "neatstuff" So I guess more history has been added?

 

You have altered the state of the book after it left the orig owner which kind of wrecks the pedigree for me.

[DarkKnightReturns]

I do not agree with pedigrees being altered in ANY way. If the book is altered the designation should become a moot point since the history of the book has been altered.

 

I think this is actually the best point I've heard so far. I don't think I'd want a pedigree book if it wasn't the org owner like Church that had gotten the book signed. It does change the history of the book because now you need to explain to the next buyer "yes I got it signed, not Mr. Church"

 

Once again, you can not change history. Also, I'm pretty sure you won't need to explain to the buyer that Edgar Church didn't have the book SS'd.

 

 

Between that and the date of each signature, if more than one sig was done on different dates, is printed right on the yellow label.

 

 

 

-slym

 

I meant raw of course. CGC SS would be a little obvious even for the most uneducated collector.