Supes #61 CGC 9.0 in CLink a resub?

[RareHighGrade]

One of the nice, and unique, aspects of the GA forum is that its threads typically do not devolve into personal attacks and name calling. Perhaps we should keep pressing threads in the General Forum so that we can all continue to like each other over here?

[batman_fan]

One of the nice, and unique, aspects of the GA forum is that its threads typically do not devolve into personal attacks and name calling. Perhaps we should keep pressing threads in the General Forum so that we can all continue to like each other over here?

 

[MrBedrock]

Guess I was wrong. (You are, as usual, wrong. But that is neither here nor there. What is at issue here is really whether or not anything heinous has actually occurred. From my understanding, you not only have the book you wanted, in a blue label, more valuable then originally presented, with provinence notated, and for significantly less money then originally offered. I think you called out Mr. Lauterbach for the wrong reason. )

Richard, the point you`re missing is that the reinstatement of the provenance was no thanks to the crack-n-resubber, who probably either didn`t care about provenance or intentionally was hiding it to try to get a better grade. Why should it have to be the responsibility of the buyer to restore the provenance when the crack-n-resubber knew the provenance all along? It`s like saying if someone stole one of your possessions and the police recovered it and returned it to you, why should you be mad at the thief since you got everything back.

 

Also, the other points that you`re making just happened to be fortuitous circumstances for this particular book for the buyer. In the vast majority of cases, the only person who benefits is the crack-n-resubber, and the buyer and the rest of the hobby is left holding the bag.

The point everyone here is missing is that pedigree, provenance, OO and the like are all contrivences which are created by collectors, for collectors. They really have nothing to do with the integrity of the book itself. They only exist to A) place the book in some kind of historical context and B) to help market the book by giving the seller some kind of idea as to what the book will look like and where it has been. But the grade is the grade, whether it is a pedigree or not. So whether or not the pedigree notation is on the CGC label doesn't matter that much. Particularly with Rockfords. THEY HAVE A DAMN STAMP ON THE COVER. They aren't that hard to recognize. If you know them you can spot them regardless of the CGC label.

 

For years pedigrees were bought and sold throughout the marketplace. Many Church books are out there as we speak with their owners having no idea what they have. And they probably bought the darn books from Chuck himself. Where is the travesty in that? How many San Fransiscos are being passed from collection to collection with no realization that they came from Reilly? Heck, I bought a Marvel 29 from a boardie who didn't realize it was an SF until he sent me a back cover scan. I have a local customer who has three Mile High Planets which he bought from Burrel back in the early '80s. He didn't know they were pedigrees until it was pointed out to him about three years ago. Where is the travesty in that? So excuse me if I don't get all worked up about CGC not noting a pedigree on the label. I don't need the freaking label to tell me if a book is cool or not.

[MrBedrock]

So, I'm wrong? You feel nothing heinous was done by Lauterbach, is that what you're saying? What reason do you believe I should have called Lauterbach out for?

 

The fact that he intentionally destroyed the historical pedigree provenance of a book doesn't bother you?

 

The fact that I had it restored is irrelevant and nothing but lucky timing that ComicKeys publicly posted information about the book that I read and investigated and found to be true before I purchased the book. Had I not, I still would have purchased it and for a fair price, but the Rockford copy would have ceased to exist.

As I said above, I am very proud of you for recognizing the Rockford stamp.

Fine work Mark Congrats.

[Aman619]

Like I said the analogy is clever. There are similarities. But the glaring difference is that Zaid et al can say and do whatever he likes but he is met with ridicule not fear. And even shouting from rooftops and creating NOD still leave him mumbling in the corner as the " communists" continue to work their game, and never face one thousanrh of the issues Macarthys victems suffered

 

That is a world of difference. No?

[comicdonna]

Guess I was wrong. (You are, as usual, wrong. But that is neither here nor there. What is at issue here is really whether or not anything heinous has actually occurred. From my understanding, you not only have the book you wanted, in a blue label, more valuable then originally presented, with provinence notated, and for significantly less money then originally offered. I think you called out Mr. Lauterbach for the wrong reason. )

Richard, the point you`re missing is that the reinstatement of the provenance was no thanks to the crack-n-resubber, who probably either didn`t care about provenance or intentionally was hiding it to try to get a better grade. Why should it have to be the responsibility of the buyer to restore the provenance when the crack-n-resubber knew the provenance all along? It`s like saying if someone stole one of your possessions and the police recovered it and returned it to you, why should you be mad at the thief since you got everything back.

 

Also, the other points that you`re making just happened to be fortuitous circumstances for this particular book for the buyer. In the vast majority of cases, the only person who benefits is the crack-n-resubber, and the buyer and the rest of the hobby is left holding the bag.

The point everyone here is missing is that pedigree, provenance, OO and the like are all contrivences which are created by collectors, for collectors. They really have nothing to do with the integrity of the book itself. They only exist to A) place the book in some kind of historical context and B) to help market the book by giving the seller some kind of idea as to what the book will look like and where it has been. But the grade is the grade, whether it is a pedigree or not. So whether or not the pedigree notation is on the CGC label doesn't matter that much. Particularly with Rockfords. THEY HAVE A DAMN STAMP ON THE COVER. They aren't that hard to recognize. If you know them you can spot them regardless of the CGC label.

 

For years pedigrees were bought and sold throughout the marketplace. Many Church books are out there as we speak with their owners having no idea what they have. And they probably bought the darn books from Chuck himself. Where is the travesty in that? How many San Fransiscos are being passed from collection to collection with no realization that they came from Reilly? Heck, I bought a Marvel 29 from a boardie who didn't realize it was an SF until he sent me a back cover scan. I have a local customer who has three Mile High Planets which he bought from Burrel back in the early '80s. He didn't know they were pedigrees until it was pointed out to him about three years ago. Where is the travesty in that? So excuse me if I don't get all worked up about CGC not noting a pedigree on the label. I don't need the freaking label to tell me if a book is cool or not.

"They only exist to place the book in some kind of historical context".

 

 

To me, this is a very important factor.

[tth2]

Slimebags?

Apparently.

 

I am proud to call several of them friends and keep their company.

Crooks and slimebags often have lots of friends and supporters.

 

And calling everyone that's ever cracked/pressed/re-subbed a slimebag is certainly your right, but it's a shame that you have to put down a large group of predominately great guys. I respect your opinion, Tim, but not how you approach the topic.

What else can I do, Jeff? The polite live and let live approach has not done anything to stem the tide. Pressing has become rampant and is not only accepted but seems to be actively encouraged.

 

The pro-pressing community is clearly interpreting the anti-pressing community's silence as acquiescence on this issue. So all I can do is make my disdain for the practice, and those who engage in the process, very clear.

 

Tim, to be clear here, was the Superman pressed?

 

My issue is that you and Mark started tossing out insults immediately without bothering to do your due diligence and find out if the book was pressed. This is what makes my allusion to McCarthyism so relevant. It was easy for him to label someone a communist with no proof to back it up, and that stigma was then attached to the victim - and it was now their obligation to disprove it.

 

What if the Superman was really a 9.0? What if the perceived recent laxity in CGC's grading standards is the simple explanation?

 

How would you have liked it if, during one of your purges on Heritage, someone had started blindly pointing at your books as being "manipulated" and calling you names? Do you really think this is rational or productive behavior?

Dan, if you go back and read my posts in this thread, at no point have I ever directly commented on the Superman #61. As you rightly point out, neither I nor anyone else (except the seller) knows whether it has been pressed or not.

 

My first post was answering clarkkentdds`s comment about why CGC couldn`t detect that it was a book they had previously graded, and my first "slimebag" comment was about crack-and-resubbers who hid the provenance of a book from CGC, allowing it to get lost. This struck a particular nerve with me because I recently picked up a CGC 9.4 Lone Ranger from Heritage which turned out to be a Mile High, but I only knew because of the "Colo Acct." stamp on the cover upon closer inspection after I won the book, and not anything on the label. This caused me to go through Heritage`s archives and lo and behold, it used to sit in a 9.2 slab and the label used to say "Mile High".

 

I haven`t accused anyone in this thread, although in fact Lauterbach is a well-known presser and has admitted such to me, which I actually respect him for. Since everyone who`s pro-pressing thinks it`s perfectly fine, there shouldn`t be any reason to be defensive or apologetic about it, right?

 

However, I did broaden my expression of disdain in this thread from those who hide provenances to those who press books. That`s just the way I feel about it and I`m not going to be polite and politically correct about it anymore.

[tth2]

Slimebags?

Apparently.

 

I am proud to call several of them friends and keep their company.

Crooks and slimebags often have lots of friends and supporters.

 

And calling everyone that's ever cracked/pressed/re-subbed a slimebag is certainly your right, but it's a shame that you have to put down a large group of predominately great guys. I respect your opinion, Tim, but not how you approach the topic.

What else can I do, Jeff? The polite live and let live approach has not done anything to stem the tide. Pressing has become rampant and is not only accepted but seems to be actively encouraged.

 

The pro-pressing community is clearly interpreting the anti-pressing community's silence as acquiescence on this issue. So all I can do is make my disdain for the practice, and those who engage in the process, very clear.

 

So, if you can't beat 'em, call 'em slimebags?

 

That's rather petty, and definitely beneath you.

Okay, Jeff, so please advise me what I should do? Just suppress the way I feel in the interest of being polite? Silence or deference only works to the benefit of the pro-pressers.

[tth2]

Guess I was wrong. (You are, as usual, wrong. But that is neither here nor there. What is at issue here is really whether or not anything heinous has actually occurred. From my understanding, you not only have the book you wanted, in a blue label, more valuable then originally presented, with provinence notated, and for significantly less money then originally offered. I think you called out Mr. Lauterbach for the wrong reason. )

Richard, the point you`re missing is that the reinstatement of the provenance was no thanks to the crack-n-resubber, who probably either didn`t care about provenance or intentionally was hiding it to try to get a better grade. Why should it have to be the responsibility of the buyer to restore the provenance when the crack-n-resubber knew the provenance all along? It`s like saying if someone stole one of your possessions and the police recovered it and returned it to you, why should you be mad at the thief since you got everything back.

 

Also, the other points that you`re making just happened to be fortuitous circumstances for this particular book for the buyer. In the vast majority of cases, the only person who benefits is the crack-n-resubber, and the buyer and the rest of the hobby is left holding the bag.

The point everyone here is missing is that pedigree, provenance, OO and the like are all contrivences which are created by collectors, for collectors. They really have nothing to do with the integrity of the book itself. They only exist to A) place the book in some kind of historical context and B) to help market the book by giving the seller some kind of idea as to what the book will look like and where it has been. But the grade is the grade, whether it is a pedigree or not. So whether or not the pedigree notation is on the CGC label doesn't matter that much. Particularly with Rockfords. THEY HAVE A DAMN STAMP ON THE COVER. They aren't that hard to recognize. If you know them you can spot them regardless of the CGC label.

 

For years pedigrees were bought and sold throughout the marketplace. Many Church books are out there as we speak with their owners having no idea what they have. And they probably bought the darn books from Chuck himself. Where is the travesty in that? How many San Fransiscos are being passed from collection to collection with no realization that they came from Reilly? Heck, I bought a Marvel 29 from a boardie who didn't realize it was an SF until he sent me a back cover scan. I have a local customer who has three Mile High Planets which he bought from Burrel back in the early '80s. He didn't know they were pedigrees until it was pointed out to him about three years ago. Where is the travesty in that? So excuse me if I don't get all worked up about CGC not noting a pedigree on the label. I don't need the freaking label to tell me if a book is cool or not.

The point YOU continue to miss is that there WE`RE talking about INTENTIONAL hiding/obscuring of a book`s provenance, while you`re trotting out examples of people who never knew in the first place or genuinely forgot because maybe the provenance wasn`t such a big deal when they bought the book, if the provenance was even disclosed to them in the first place.

 

Let me put it in simple terms since you seem determined to confuse this issue with your true-but-irrelevant analogies. Person gets shot by a gun and dies. The end result is the same, but it makes a huge difference under the law whether the person who pulled the trigger was (i) an adult who knew exactly what he was doing, or (ii) a little kid who didn`t know it was a gun or what would happen when the trigger was pulled.

[nearmint]

Slimebags?

Apparently.

 

I am proud to call several of them friends and keep their company.

Crooks and slimebags often have lots of friends and supporters.

 

And calling everyone that's ever cracked/pressed/re-subbed a slimebag is certainly your right, but it's a shame that you have to put down a large group of predominately great guys. I respect your opinion, Tim, but not how you approach the topic.

What else can I do, Jeff? The polite live and let live approach has not done anything to stem the tide. Pressing has become rampant and is not only accepted but seems to be actively encouraged.

 

The pro-pressing community is clearly interpreting the anti-pressing community's silence as acquiescence on this issue. So all I can do is make my disdain for the practice, and those who engage in the process, very clear.

 

So, if you can't beat 'em, call 'em slimebags?

 

That's rather petty, and definitely beneath you.

Okay, Jeff, so please advise me what I should do? Just suppress the way I feel in the interest of being polite? Silence or deference only works to the benefit of the pro-pressers.

 

Who said anything about being silent? People express differing opinions in a polite manner all the time. I'm sure you're capable of it.

[tth2]

Slimebags?

Apparently.

 

I am proud to call several of them friends and keep their company.

Crooks and slimebags often have lots of friends and supporters.

 

And calling everyone that's ever cracked/pressed/re-subbed a slimebag is certainly your right, but it's a shame that you have to put down a large group of predominately great guys. I respect your opinion, Tim, but not how you approach the topic.

What else can I do, Jeff? The polite live and let live approach has not done anything to stem the tide. Pressing has become rampant and is not only accepted but seems to be actively encouraged.

 

The pro-pressing community is clearly interpreting the anti-pressing community's silence as acquiescence on this issue. So all I can do is make my disdain for the practice, and those who engage in the process, very clear.

 

So, if you can't beat 'em, call 'em slimebags?

 

That's rather petty, and definitely beneath you.

Okay, Jeff, so please advise me what I should do? Just suppress the way I feel in the interest of being polite? Silence or deference only works to the benefit of the pro-pressers.

 

Who said anything about being silent? People express differing opinions in a polite manner all the time. I'm sure you're capable of it.

Of course I am. But it hasn`t been particularly successful, has it?

 

Isn`t the definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing but expect a different result each time?

[nearmint]

Slimebags?

Apparently.

 

I am proud to call several of them friends and keep their company.

Crooks and slimebags often have lots of friends and supporters.

 

And calling everyone that's ever cracked/pressed/re-subbed a slimebag is certainly your right, but it's a shame that you have to put down a large group of predominately great guys. I respect your opinion, Tim, but not how you approach the topic.

What else can I do, Jeff? The polite live and let live approach has not done anything to stem the tide. Pressing has become rampant and is not only accepted but seems to be actively encouraged.

 

The pro-pressing community is clearly interpreting the anti-pressing community's silence as acquiescence on this issue. So all I can do is make my disdain for the practice, and those who engage in the process, very clear.

 

So, if you can't beat 'em, call 'em slimebags?

 

That's rather petty, and definitely beneath you.

Okay, Jeff, so please advise me what I should do? Just suppress the way I feel in the interest of being polite? Silence or deference only works to the benefit of the pro-pressers.

 

Who said anything about being silent? People express differing opinions in a polite manner all the time. I'm sure you're capable of it.

Of course I am. But it hasn`t been particularly successful, has it?

 

Isn`t the definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing but expect a different result each time?

 

Successful? What are you trying to succeed at? Other than insulting some very cool people.

[esquirecomics]

Slimebags?

Apparently.

 

I am proud to call several of them friends and keep their company.

Crooks and slimebags often have lots of friends and supporters.

 

And calling everyone that's ever cracked/pressed/re-subbed a slimebag is certainly your right, but it's a shame that you have to put down a large group of predominately great guys. I respect your opinion, Tim, but not how you approach the topic.

What else can I do, Jeff? The polite live and let live approach has not done anything to stem the tide. Pressing has become rampant and is not only accepted but seems to be actively encouraged.

 

The pro-pressing community is clearly interpreting the anti-pressing community's silence as acquiescence on this issue. So all I can do is make my disdain for the practice, and those who engage in the process, very clear.

 

Tim, to be clear here, was the Superman pressed?

 

My issue is that you and Mark started tossing out insults immediately without bothering to do your due diligence and find out if the book was pressed. This is what makes my allusion to McCarthyism so relevant. It was easy for him to label someone a communist with no proof to back it up, and that stigma was then attached to the victim - and it was now their obligation to disprove it.

 

What if the Superman was really a 9.0? What if the perceived recent laxity in CGC's grading standards is the simple explanation?

 

How would you have liked it if, during one of your purges on Heritage, someone had started blindly pointing at your books as being "manipulated" and calling you names? Do you really think this is rational or productive behavior?

 

At least I think I now understand the premise for your earlier post Dan, but to be honest I believe you misread what I was discussing.

 

For one thing, just to be clear, at no time did I comment on the Supes #61. I know nothing about that particular situation.

 

Nor was I commenting about pressing. I never indicated that any of the three books I referenced were pressed. I think we are applying different usages to the term "manipulated". To me restoration removal, which is what happened with the MF #52, is manipulation of the book. I am using the term literally, i.e., anything that is done to manipulate the book. As I think about it further it may be that the term has become so synonymous with pressing that people are solely interpreting it in that manner. I don't know if that is what happened here, but as it is a possibility I am clarifying my position to explain what I meant.

 

As far as the other two books, the Tough Kid Squad #1 Kansas copy and All American #1 Larson copy, I have absolutely no evidence, nor did I suggest any, that they were pressed and resubmitted. I only know they were resubmitted, and the concerns I have about that process, distinct from pressing, are set forth above.

 

And, of course, as a final note, I was commenting on books I myself own. Therefore, if I was hurting anyone, which I don't think I was, it would have been myself.

 

Based on the above, I am admittedly unclear on what I wrote that led you to accuse me of "tossing out insults" or failing to undertake "due diligence".

[Bunky Brian]

I know Jack very well. He and I feel the same about this very unfortunate state of affairs.

 

How in the world can this be fair to Jack or the new buyer of this book? It went from a 1K sale to probably 2-4X...

 

That shadow is a fingerprint. If a hobbyist can see this, why can't CGC pick up on this? CGC needs to do a better job at detecting alterations.

 

 

 

 

HE'S RIGHT

[Bunky Brian]

How do we know that the book was altered? We're talking about a .5 difference. Entirely possible that this book was merely resubbed.

 

I think it's unfair to the current owner to "scarlet letter" the book without knowing for sure that some manipulation has occurred.

 

True enough. I have seen enough books go up or down by one point on a straight resub to know that it can happen.

 

Wati a minute he's right,

I'm confused, this hobby has become a minefield of re slabs, innocent or pressed,

makes me tired,

 

BB

[Bunky Brian]

All I can say is NONE OF MY BOOKS, WILL EVER EVER EVER BE PRESSED AND RESUB, EVER!!!

 

So there,

 

BB

[esquirecomics]

Guess I was wrong. (You are, as usual, wrong. But that is neither here nor there. What is at issue here is really whether or not anything heinous has actually occurred. From my understanding, you not only have the book you wanted, in a blue label, more valuable then originally presented, with provinence notated, and for significantly less money then originally offered. I think you called out Mr. Lauterbach for the wrong reason. )

Richard, the point you`re missing is that the reinstatement of the provenance was no thanks to the crack-n-resubber, who probably either didn`t care about provenance or intentionally was hiding it to try to get a better grade. Why should it have to be the responsibility of the buyer to restore the provenance when the crack-n-resubber knew the provenance all along? It`s like saying if someone stole one of your possessions and the police recovered it and returned it to you, why should you be mad at the thief since you got everything back.

 

Also, the other points that you`re making just happened to be fortuitous circumstances for this particular book for the buyer. In the vast majority of cases, the only person who benefits is the crack-n-resubber, and the buyer and the rest of the hobby is left holding the bag.

The point everyone here is missing is that pedigree, provenance, OO and the like are all contrivences which are created by collectors, for collectors. They really have nothing to do with the integrity of the book itself. They only exist to A) place the book in some kind of historical context and B) to help market the book by giving the seller some kind of idea as to what the book will look like and where it has been. But the grade is the grade, whether it is a pedigree or not. So whether or not the pedigree notation is on the CGC label doesn't matter that much. Particularly with Rockfords. THEY HAVE A DAMN STAMP ON THE COVER. They aren't that hard to recognize. If you know them you can spot them regardless of the CGC label.

 

For years pedigrees were bought and sold throughout the marketplace. Many Church books are out there as we speak with their owners having no idea what they have. And they probably bought the darn books from Chuck himself. Where is the travesty in that? How many San Fransiscos are being passed from collection to collection with no realization that they came from Reilly? Heck, I bought a Marvel 29 from a boardie who didn't realize it was an SF until he sent me a back cover scan. I have a local customer who has three Mile High Planets which he bought from Burrel back in the early '80s. He didn't know they were pedigrees until it was pointed out to him about three years ago. Where is the travesty in that? So excuse me if I don't get all worked up about CGC not noting a pedigree on the label. I don't need the freaking label to tell me if a book is cool or not.

 

Show me please.

 

 

I truly do not understand the arguments you are espousing Richard. So because the provenance of some pedigrees has been lost unintentionally over the years that justifies or excuses the intentional laundering of a book to hide its pedigree for the purpose of profit?

 

Perhaps that is not what you meant but that is how I interpret it. And it is not about whether the book is "cool" or not. It is about the history, and let's be honest it is also about the value. I have a Civil War Union soldier letter that is amazing for its penmanship and content. It is "cool". It is not worth much b/c it is written by just a normal solider. If I had a letter from General Grant about his experiences it would also be "cool", and historically and monetarily valuable.

 

Plus, by way of your arguments, I would expect that none of the pedigree books you have for sale have any price difference than any other similarly graded copy. I will happily buy every Church book you own for sale at a non-pedigree price. But we all know that will never happen.

[esquirecomics]

So, I'm wrong? You feel nothing heinous was done by Lauterbach, is that what you're saying? What reason do you believe I should have called Lauterbach out for?

 

The fact that he intentionally destroyed the historical pedigree provenance of a book doesn't bother you?

 

The fact that I had it restored is irrelevant and nothing but lucky timing that ComicKeys publicly posted information about the book that I read and investigated and found to be true before I purchased the book. Had I not, I still would have purchased it and for a fair price, but the Rockford copy would have ceased to exist.

As I said above, I am very proud of you for recognizing the Rockford stamp.

Fine work Mark Congrats.

 

See above Richard. I do know I need new glasses but I didn't think my prescription has changed that much.

 

So, to repeat my actual question: "The fact that he intentionally destroyed the historical pedigree provenance of a book doesn't bother you?"

 

I assume you purposefully ignored this question because you believe you answered it in your post to Tim, and that the answer is "no".

 

You are entitled to your opinion but I believe most GA collectors do not share it, and it surprises me coming from you. Perhaps I do need a different pair of glasses. I am seeing things in a different light now.

[Bunky Brian]

OK, can't we all just get along, here?

 

I love everybody,

 

BB

[nearmint]

I own the Rockford copy of More Fun #52 CGC 5.5. I purchased it from Steve Lauterbach. The book I purchased did not note on the label that it was the Rockford pedigree copy (and also from Nicholas Cage's collection). The reason it didn't is that the book had just previously been a purple label CGC 6.5 (slight glue) which had not met reserve at Heritage. The glue (or tape residue according to Mark Wilson who discovered the Rockford collection) was removed and the book was resubmitted to CGC without any evidence of the pedigree nature of the book to purposefully hide the manipulation of removed restoration (I should note I have no problems with the removal of restoration so long as disclosed).

 

Lauterbach conveniently did not tell me of what had transpired before the purchase but fortunately ComicKeys, of all people, exposed the alteration and at least I ultimately did purchase the book knowing what had occurred, no thanks to Mr. Lauterbach. I subsequently had the book resubmitted so that the pedigree designation could be "restored".

 

Mark, Steve cracked the book out of this slab, right? Where's the Rockford designation on the CGC label?