• 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.

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

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

201 members have voted

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

    • 19735
    • 19735
    • 19733
    • 19734


93 posts in this topic

Signed books do nothing for me. I certainly wouldn't deface a ped with a sig. Everyone collects differently. I'm not trying to pass judgment at all. I would have a sig on a POS SA/BA/CA/MA book if I was the person that got the sig. IMHO, a sig is a just a pen mark,scribble on a comic book. As well as another way for folks to make $. I'm a bit tipsy and depressed so.......................... :(

And I ped notation is just another way for folks to make more money....

 

I get the depressed part........ :(

I think the pedigree designation is more like an award. Years of maintaining and building a great collection.

Hey, I love pedigrees too...just turning around the "a sig is a just a pen mark,scribble on a comic book. As well as another way for folks to make $ "

 

OK. I can respect a collector for whatever they collect. Hell, it's still a comic, just one that's been written on on. Again, my opinion. I don't get it. People make plenty of money off of them. That's ok with me. :gossip: Big Brother is on, I'm out. :)

(thumbs u
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the pedigree designation is more like an award. Years of maintaining and building a great collection.

 

Yeah, but how often does the actual collector get to see it?

 

How often does anyone get to see their books? Whenever you want.

 

I think we're misunderstanding each other, I thought you meant the pedigree was an award for a great collection, meaning that the award went to the original owner. Assuming that, I meant how often does that original owner get to see it? The Church copies were sold after his death, so he never got to enjoy the designation, only those that bought and sold them later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I truly feel that having the original artist/creator sign a book that they worked on, can only enhance a pedigree book. To me, that Tally Ho has now become the single most desirable Church book... I have been a Frazetta fan my whole life, and having his first work, from the Edgar Church collection, signed by him... well, that would just be the absolute bee's knees...

 

This opinion has been brought to you by the letter Y, and the number Zero...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started because of these threads. Not the SS on peds, but just reading about them. If I wasnt so lazy I would send scans so you could see what Jim means about the uniformity of the runs.

 

How about just an example? Are you talking about condition, or similar markings?

How about two examples. The Pacific Coast books I own all ahve perfect gloss, white pages, and vivid colors. I own two Ohio books that are both CGC 8.5 have a grease pencil arrival date from the OO and all have white pages. Mass copy books are known for bright and vivid covers and blinding white pages. And generally condition is uniform, except for the ocassional "odd duck".

 

I don't see how a Frazetta signature would take away from "perfect gloss, white pages, and vivid colors" or "bright and vivid colors and blinding white pages". Perhaps if he had written over one of the OO markings but I can't see the detraction if he had signed one of the peds listed above (other than terrible placement). I've read that the Mile Highs have a distinctive smell which I'm sure didn't disappear once Frank touched the book. Are there any other Edgar Church qualities that he could have altered?

 

For the record, I've never owned a pedigree but I've always been fascinated by them. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there any other Edgar Church qualities that he could have altered?

 

Yes. Edgar Church didn't have Frazetta's signature on the book. If he did, no one would care right now. You don't see anyone complaining about issues where Lamont Larson wrote his name on the cover. As for the Church smell, don't buy a SS book. If you crack it so that you can take a whiff of that aroma, it's no longer a "certified" signature. Ditto for if you want to read it and see those white pages.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edgar Church didn't have Frazetta's signature on the book. If he did, no one would care right now.

 

Do you mean that the pedigree wouldn't be worth anything if he had, or that this whole thread would be a moot point?

 

 

 

-slym

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there any other Edgar Church qualities that he could have altered?

 

Yes. Edgar Church didn't have Frazetta's signature on the book. If he did, no one would care right now. You don't see anyone complaining about issues where Lamont Larson wrote his name on the cover. As for the Church smell, don't buy a SS book. If you crack it so that you can take a whiff of that aroma, it's no longer a "certified" signature. Ditto for if you want to read it and see those white pages.
Solid point (thumbs u
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edgar Church didn't have Frazetta's signature on the book. If he did, no one would care right now.

 

Do you mean that the pedigree wouldn't be worth anything if he had, or that this whole thread would be a moot point?

 

 

 

-slym

Neither. It wouldn't make the pedigree any less important in my mind. And it also wouldn't make it right, IMHO, to add the signature of some other creator at a later date. And since he never had one to begin with, let's not start arguing the false premise of what would be acceptable if he had.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edgar Church didn't have Frazetta's signature on the book. If he did, no one would care right now.

 

Do you mean that the pedigree wouldn't be worth anything if he had, or that this whole thread would be a moot point?

 

 

 

-slym

Neither. It wouldn't make the pedigree any less important in my mind. And it also wouldn't make it right, IMHO, to add the signature of some other creator at a later date. And since he never had one to begin with, let's not start arguing the false premise of what would be acceptable if he had.

 

I was only trying to figure out exactly what you meant by that one statement I quoted - nothing more.

 

;)

 

 

 

-slym

Link to comment
Share on other sites