Supes #61 CGC 9.0 in CLink a resub?

[G.A.tor]

Certification # 0055531012

Grade Date 07/18/2002

Title More Fun Comics

Issue 52

Issue Date 2/40

Publisher D.C. Comics

Country

Variant

Pedigree

Category Apparent SP

Grade 6.5

Page Quality CREAM TO OFF-WHITE

GradeText Restoration includes: small amount of glue on spine of cover.

Art Comments Jerry Siegel & Al Sulman stories

John Lehti Joe Sulman & George Papp art

Bernard Baily cover & art

Key Comments Origin & 1st appearance of the Spectre.

Last Wing Brady.

Issue Year 1940

Population See CGC poplookup

 

[G.A.tor]

heritage stated it was the Rockford, cgc did not initially identify as the rockford, and the book is missing the typical Rockford fc stamp

[t3quila]

Can't comment on any of the cases mentioned.

Pressing or not, restoration removal, as long as it's disclosed, many books are pressed without disclosure, part and parcel of the cgc slabbing game I guess and something we all will have to deal with.

 

But, destruction of provenance, akin to cultural and historical vandalism.

Yes many pedigree books have lost provenance doesn't mean we should condone further loss.

[skypinkblu]

heritage stated it was the Rockford, cgc did not initially identify as the rockford, and the book is missing the typical Rockford fc stamp

 

Then how did Heritage know it was the "Rockford"?

[Straw-Man]

 

heritage stated it was the Rockford, cgc did not initially identify as the rockford, and the book is missing the typical Rockford fc stamp

 

Then how did Heritage know it was the "Rockford"?

 

 

5.5 books from jan and feb 1940 get automatic rockford designation, regardless of absence of 's' or 'w' stamp. here's mine.

 

[Straw-Man]

i like the 'w' stamp ones.

 

[Straw-Man]

and a nice 's' one.

 

 

 

[pssst--i'm trying to derail the boringassed pressing spat with FUNNY BOOKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[skypinkblu]

I think I have a "Rockford" Wonder Woman ...if I do, I got it from Gator...don't remember, but it wouldn't be from 1940...and I am not going to start looking through that pile of slabs to find out..

 

Unless of course you are teasing me...

[skypinkblu]

and a nice 's' one.

 

 

 

 

[pssst--i'm trying to derail the boringassed pressing spat with FUNNY BOOKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

OH..Whew, thank you.

 

Then I'll add my

 

Just stamp them in the centerfold with a "P" when you press them, with an "R" when you restore them and with a "U", when you unrestore them.

 

Anyone can look to see what is done, if you don't use the stamp, then we can call you names...case closed.

[MrBedrock]

This discussion could get very interesting. My position is this, CGC is a grading company. They grade comics. When they give a book a pedigree notation generally they start with information that the submitter gives them. They then varify to the best of their ability. But at the end of the day they are making an educated guess. I have had a couple of instances where I submitted books that I knew were Church books, could track ownership back to the source, and still couldn't get a pedigree notation because there was already one on the census. And after doing further research it was determined that earlier graded books were mistakenly notated as pedigrees due to erroneous info provided by the submitter. There are questionable books in holders. There are also known pedigrees in holders with no notation. And worse yet, there are those of us who crack all of our books out of the holders! Are those books having their history torn from them? Heck no. But what if an owner of those books passes and family is left the responsibility. All of the stored labels could be lost and then what happens. Oh the humanity! Lost History! NOOOOOOO!

There are pedigree experts out there. They can generally determine if a book is indeed a pedigree. CGC has a couple on staff and they do a wonderful job. But whether or not a book has its pedigree status listed on the holder doesn't mean it is or isn't a pedigree.

 

So now we are presented with a More Fun 52. Supposedly a Rockford, but no stamp on the cover. It apparently has been in at least two holders with no Rockford notation. How are we to know for sure that this book is in fact a Rockford and not simply a More Fun 52 that the present owner, and submitter, simply stated was a Rockford on his CGC submission form and slipped past the unsuspecting graders at CGC? Like I said, this discussion could get very interesting.

[Straw-Man]

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.

 

that you've seen any kind of light at all is a step in the right direction, counselor. you go!

[nearmint]

heritage stated it was the Rockford, cgc did not initially identify as the rockford, and the book is missing the typical Rockford fc stamp

 

Then Mark's point doesn't make any sense. He accuses Steve of hiding the pedigree status of the MF #52 from CGC in order to hide the work done to it. But, if CGC had already identified the book as a non-pedigree, why would the pedigree status help them identify the book as one they'd already slabbed? That's not how they have it listed in their system, as Rick detailed in a post above.

 

Heck, Steve would have done a better job of hiding the work from CGC by providing the pedigree status.

[esquirecomics]

heritage stated it was the Rockford, cgc did not initially identify as the rockford, and the book is missing the typical Rockford fc stamp

 

Given that I know I did not undertake any independent research on the issue nor am I qualified to render any pedigree designations on my own, I would have proceeded based on what Heritage stated (and what Lauterbach and possibly Dave Anderson, who had also owned it, had told me in conversation at the time - and I also spoke to Mark Wilson (remember the relevance of the tape/glue residue aspect) - but the discussions were primarily about the restoration removal and who had performed it). I have no idea why or on what basis Heritage claimed it was the Rockford copy. At the time this event was on-going, which was around 4-5 years ago, I believed Heritage's experts would not assert a claim of that nature without something more than an observational opinion.

 

This controversy was discussed on the boards and Steve Borock became aware of it in the process. I gave the book back to CGC and they had full knowledge of the situation. They never questioned the pedigree status. They simply added it to the label. Again, I trusted Borock, Haspel and others to ensure historical provenance was accurate.

 

I am all for ensuring proper pedigree designations are applied to books, and that means whether it should be listed or delisted. People may recall that I had CGC remove the Larson designation from my Blue Ribbon #1 CGC 8.5 because Jon Berk proved on the boards he actually owned the copy. I also challenged Heritage's claim that a Wambi #5 was the Church copy when I was already in possession of a copy that CGC previously designated as such.

 

If someone can demonstrate that this is not the Rockford copy I will also have that designation removed from the label and, if appropriate, apologize for any inaccurate misrepresentations. But I simply do not recall from 5 years ago the specific facts of what transpired.

[skypinkblu]

Mark, it seems that as with much of history...some things are not certain, some things were misreported, and sometimes even the best of us make errors (and that is just a generalization, I don't mean to point a finger at anyone, least of all you, I make plenty myself).

 

What this thread did do, is make me re-read the site that lists the different types of pedigrees. I own a few of the Okijama books, I find that designation interesting because of the historical significance and because I believe she was the only female so far connected to a pedigree. I think this research has inspired me to look for a few more of her books....so thank you for rekindling my interest. Summer is coming to a very fast end, I hope all of you take some time to enjoy it.

[Straw-Man]

Mark, it seems that as with much of history...some things are not certain, some things were misreported, and sometimes even the best of us make errors (and that is just a generalization, I don't mean to point a finger at anyone, least of all you, I make plenty myself).

 

What this thread did do, is make me re-read the site that lists the different types of pedigrees. I own a few of the Okijama books, I find that designation interesting because of the historical significance and because I believe she was the only female so far connected to a pedigree. I think this research has inspired me to look for a few more of her books....so thank you for rekindling my interest. Summer is coming to a very fast end, I hope all of you take some time to enjoy it.

 

how 'bout y'all start your late-summer enjoyment with another pretty rockford. love me some yella books.

 

[Straw-Man]

i understand crowley once spent the night in rockford. wish all my 6.5's looked like this.

 

[Straw-Man]

speaking of cgc missing peds now and then, i've always wondered how they missed this circle A copy; i mean, it's right there on the cover.

 

[G.A.tor]

speaking of cgc missing peds now and then, i've always wondered how they missed this circle A copy; i mean, it's right there on the cover.

 

[G.A.tor]

and let me state for the record that I am not trying to question anyone's participation, etc none of this "he said she said" crappola... and I know that some rockfords didn't have the W or S stamp on the cover (like the MF53,etc) ...

 

my only question was that someone stated it had been in a rockford purple label, then in a non rockford blue label, and I don't see any evidence of that (only evidence I can find is that heritage called it a rockford, but cgc didn't initially, at least 2x, right?)

 

that is all I am trying to figure out (thumbs u

[esquirecomics]

 

my only question was that someone stated it had been in a rockford purple label, then in a non rockford blue label, and I don't see any evidence of that (only evidence I can find is that heritage called it a rockford, but cgc didn't initially, at least 2x, right?)

 

that is all I am trying to figure out (thumbs u

 

Rich, I never said it was in a Rockford purple label. I merely said it was the Rockford copy and had been in a purple label before I purchased it as a blue label non-Rockford (as well as Cage copy, which is historically, as far as I am concerned, insignificant but certainly proof of provenance that had been erased). Looking back at what I initially wrote, however, I can see how it could have been misinterpreted.

 

As I stated, at a minimum, the "direct" evidence of it being the Rockford copy was from Heritage. Someone will have to ask them why they claimed it was the Rockford copy. The book was owned by, among others, Mark Wilson, Dave Anderson and Steve Lauterbach (and in that order with potential gaps). Obviously whoever consigned it to Heritage as a restored CGC 6.5 either agreed or went along with Heritage's designation as the Rockford.

 

I do want to correct one error I believe I did write above. It was not the restored copy that failed to sell through Heritage but the unrestored version. The restored CGC 6.5 Rockford sold on October 9, 2002 for $23,000. It failed to sell as a blue label 5.5 on September 30, 2004.

 

I purchased it from Lauterbach in November 2004.

 

And you are correct about the MF 53 Rockford, at least according to the CGC label and Heritage description, also not having any fc markings.