Supes #61 CGC 9.0 in CLink a resub?

[G.A.tor]

 

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.

ok, I must have mis understood... that at least answers my question about when it was in a rockford purple cgc label (thumbs u

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

i like the 'w' stamp ones.

 

 

My old copy....

[t3quila]

Despite the arguments, there are some nice books posted in this thread.

[nearmint]

 

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.

 

So Lauterbach's sin was in not passing Heritage's opinion that the book was the Rockford on to CGC?

[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.

 

So Lauterbach's sin was in not passing Heritage's opinion that the book was the Rockford on to CGC?

 

There are different levels of "sin".

 

The most egregious would be related to the loss of the pedigree designation. My recollection, and it is strictly my recollection as I highly doubt I have anything in writing so people can take it for what they want, was that Lauterbach did not dispute the Rockford pedigree designation. As I mentioned, the Heritage auction of 2002 was specifically discussed because I knew about it in advance of meeting with him and buying the book. There was no dispute that it was the same book, and that meant that it had been advertised as the Rockford/Cage copy.

 

Now, I also take issue with the fact that the restoration was removed without disclosure in advance, and that it appears, as far as I am concerned, that the Cage designation was removed in order to launder the book so that no one would know it had previously been restored. I was given evidence that led me to determine that Lauterbach was the individual who had this performed.

 

Again, the removal of the restoration itself doesn't bother me in the slightest, obviously. I knew about it at time of purchase. Nor do I even think it is anything other than a minor matter but I personally find it "inappropriate" and would not act in that manner. This is my own subjective opinion and completely subject to different views. But this encounter, as well as other information shared with me by others (some of which has been posted here on the boards over the last 5 years), led me to decide I was uncomfortable in having any future dealings with Lauterbach.

[nearmint]

Now, I also take issue with the fact that the restoration was removed without disclosure in advance, and that it appears, as far as I am concerned, that the Cage designation was removed in order to launder the book so that no one would know it had previously been restored. I was given evidence that led me to determine that Lauterbach was the individual who had this performed.

 

My understanding is that "collection" designations are always dropped on re-subs. It's happened on innumerable Mile High 2 and Dona Rosa books. I think it's inaccurate to accuse someone of removing the Cage designation in order to launder the book, when leaving off collection designation on re-subs is CGC's policy.

 

I'm surprised that you were able to have the Cage designation restored, but there'd been so much talk at the time about this book and your experience, I assume Steve thought it would be easier to just put it back on.

[batman_fan]

Now, I also take issue with the fact that the restoration was removed without disclosure in advance, and that it appears, as far as I am concerned, that the Cage designation was removed in order to launder the book so that no one would know it had previously been restored. I was given evidence that led me to determine that Lauterbach was the individual who had this performed.

 

My understanding is that "collection" designations are always dropped on re-subs. It's happened on innumerable Mile High 2 and Dona Rosa books. I think it's inaccurate to accuse someone of removing the Cage designation in order to launder the book, when leaving off collection designation on re-subs is CGC's policy.

 

I'm surprised that you were able to have the Cage designation restored, but there'd been so much talk at the time about this book and your experience, I assume Steve thought it would be easier to just put it back on.

 

Does this mean all "from the collection" books will go away since CGC recommends reholder after some number of years?

[nearmint]

Now, I also take issue with the fact that the restoration was removed without disclosure in advance, and that it appears, as far as I am concerned, that the Cage designation was removed in order to launder the book so that no one would know it had previously been restored. I was given evidence that led me to determine that Lauterbach was the individual who had this performed.

 

My understanding is that "collection" designations are always dropped on re-subs. It's happened on innumerable Mile High 2 and Dona Rosa books. I think it's inaccurate to accuse someone of removing the Cage designation in order to launder the book, when leaving off collection designation on re-subs is CGC's policy.

 

I'm surprised that you were able to have the Cage designation restored, but there'd been so much talk at the time about this book and your experience, I assume Steve thought it would be easier to just put it back on.

 

Does this mean all "from the collection" books will go away since CGC recommends reholder after some number of years?

 

That's my understanding of the policy. If someone knows different, please let me know.

 

But I doubt all of the "collection of" books would disappear. Not everyone is going to have their books reholdered every 7 years.

[esquirecomics]

Now, I also take issue with the fact that the restoration was removed without disclosure in advance, and that it appears, as far as I am concerned, that the Cage designation was removed in order to launder the book so that no one would know it had previously been restored. I was given evidence that led me to determine that Lauterbach was the individual who had this performed.

 

My understanding is that "collection" designations are always dropped on re-subs. It's happened on innumerable Mile High 2 and Dona Rosa books. I think it's inaccurate to accuse someone of removing the Cage designation in order to launder the book, when leaving off collection designation on re-subs is CGC's policy.

 

I'm surprised that you were able to have the Cage designation restored, but there'd been so much talk at the time about this book and your experience, I assume Steve thought it would be easier to just put it back on.

 

Does this mean all "from the collection" books will go away since CGC recommends reholder after some number of years?

 

That's my understanding of the policy. If someone knows different, please let me know.

 

But I doubt all of the "collection of" books would disappear. Not everyone is going to have their books reholdered every 7 years.

 

I am not aware of any such policy. I have never seen it in writing. And this is the first time I've ever even heard of it.

 

I'm not saying that it's untrue, but obviously my experience reveals something to the contrary.

 

No one at CGC ever mentioned that to me when they took the book back for relabeling. I don't particularly care about the Cage designation (other than its an interesting waer cooler talking point) and if they had said it was a matter of policy I would have said fine.

 

I can only speak to my own experiences and knowledge.

[comixcroz]

Now, I also take issue with the fact that the restoration was removed without disclosure in advance, and that it appears, as far as I am concerned, that the Cage designation was removed in order to launder the book so that no one would know it had previously been restored. I was given evidence that led me to determine that Lauterbach was the individual who had this performed.

 

My understanding is that "collection" designations are always dropped on re-subs. It's happened on innumerable Mile High 2 and Dona Rosa books. I think it's inaccurate to accuse someone of removing the Cage designation in order to launder the book, when leaving off collection designation on re-subs is CGC's policy.

 

I'm surprised that you were able to have the Cage designation restored, but there'd been so much talk at the time about this book and your experience, I assume Steve thought it would be easier to just put it back on.

 

Does this mean all "from the collection" books will go away since CGC recommends reholder after some number of years?

 

That's my understanding of the policy. If someone knows different, please let me know.

 

But I doubt all of the "collection of" books would disappear. Not everyone is going to have their books reholdered every 7 years.

I'm fairly certain that's not the policy for straight reholders but I have heard it's the policy for re-grading...

[nearmint]

Now, I also take issue with the fact that the restoration was removed without disclosure in advance, and that it appears, as far as I am concerned, that the Cage designation was removed in order to launder the book so that no one would know it had previously been restored. I was given evidence that led me to determine that Lauterbach was the individual who had this performed.

 

My understanding is that "collection" designations are always dropped on re-subs. It's happened on innumerable Mile High 2 and Dona Rosa books. I think it's inaccurate to accuse someone of removing the Cage designation in order to launder the book, when leaving off collection designation on re-subs is CGC's policy.

 

I'm surprised that you were able to have the Cage designation restored, but there'd been so much talk at the time about this book and your experience, I assume Steve thought it would be easier to just put it back on.

 

Does this mean all "from the collection" books will go away since CGC recommends reholder after some number of years?

 

That's my understanding of the policy. If someone knows different, please let me know.

 

But I doubt all of the "collection of" books would disappear. Not everyone is going to have their books reholdered every 7 years.

I'm fairly certain that's not the policy for straight reholders but I have heard it's the policy for re-grading...

 

Right. By re-sub I meant regrading, not a simple reholder. Reholdering to update the microchamber paper wouldn't affect the "collection of" designation.

[jkrk]

 

I finally read this thread and fail to understand the point. I guess it's not surprising given the fact that I scored a 460 on my English SAT and the posters here are truly smarter than I am.

 

Are we back to discussing who did what with what? Who didn't mention what to whom? What are we buyiing? Whose fooloing who? What did CGC know and when did they know it? Do they know it now? Will more money be made in the resubbing game or selling T-shirts?

 

Maybe the point is that :

 

if breadcrumbs are dropped on a trail but birds come by to scoop up the crumbs then CGC gets lost?

 

 

I guess I've read enough, understand very little but continue to be haunted by the old line:

 

Forget it, Jake. It's chnatown.

[tth2]

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!

So you've raised every possible fact situation except the one that I raised, where it was likely done deliberately or at least with knowledge and complete disregard. And it looks like a little work has been done on the upper edge of the front cover and upper right corner.

 

Lone Ranger #27 purchased by me on Aug 2, 2009

 

 

Lone Ranger #27 not sold on Heritage on Aug 12 and Jan 21 2006.

 

 

Yes, Richard, I understand that the book is still a MH book regardless of what the label says, but it doesn't bother you that someone may have intentionally hidden the provenance? And that the buyer is the one who has to bear the cost and burden of restoring the provenance, if they should wish to do so?

[buttock]

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!

So you've raised every possible fact situation except the one that I raised, where it was likely done deliberately or at least with knowledge and complete disregard. And it looks like a little work has been done on the upper edge of the front cover and upper right corner.

 

Lone Ranger #27 purchased by me on Aug 2, 2009

 

 

Lone Ranger #27 not sold on Heritage on Aug 12 and Jan 21 2006.

 

 

Yes, Richard, I understand that the book is still a MH book regardless of what the label says, but it doesn't bother you that someone may have intentionally hidden the provenance? And that the buyer is the one who has to bear the cost and burden of restoring the provenance, if they should wish to do so?

 

And someone clearly bleached the pages too. I mean, if something changed on the CGC label it was absolutely 100% done deliberately by someone. Right?

 

The buyer now has to bear the cost and burden IF THEY WANT TO RE-SLAB AND RE-SELL it. If you're happy with the book, and you know it's the Church copy then who gives a rat's ?

[Straw-Man]

I finally read this thread and fail to understand the point. I guess it's not surprising given the fact that I scored a 460 on my English SAT and the posters here are truly smarter than I am.

 

Are we back to discussing who did what with what? Who didn't mention what to whom? What are we buyiing? Whose fooloing who? What did CGC know and when did they know it? Do they know it now? Will more money be made in the resubbing game or selling T-shirts?

 

Maybe the point is that :

 

if breadcrumbs are dropped on a trail but birds come by to scoop up the crumbs then CGC gets lost?

 

 

I guess I've read enough, understand very little but continue to be haunted by the old line:

 

Forget it, Jake. It's chnatown.

 

the future, mr. gittes. the future.

[tth2]

And someone clearly bleached the pages too.

Don't be an a*s*s, Dan (no pun intended). I'm not taking issue with CGC giving a different grade or different PQ.

 

I mean, if something changed on the CGC label it was absolutely 100% done deliberately by someone. Right?

I think there's a high likelihood that the provenance was intentionally "lost". Do you disagree?

 

The buyer now has to bear the cost and burden IF THEY WANT TO RE-SLAB AND RE-SELL it. If you're happy with the book, and you know it's the Church copy then who gives a rat's ?

Well, the answer is I WOULD like to sell it, and am NOT happy with the book, now that I know it's just another pressed POS. So yes, I guess it will be yours truly that has to bear the cost and burden of reslabbing the thing with the MH provenance if and when I sell it. That should make you happy, right?

 

And just dealing with the conceptual issue, what if I hadn't been the buyer and hadn't noticed the "Colo Acct" stamp and then researched accordingly? What if it had been some guy like some of Richard's examples who had no idea it was the MH copy? I thought you were into the whole provenance and historical aspect of collecting, so I'm surprised that you are actively hostile to my indignation that the book could have just disappeared from the rolls, as it were.

[Straw-Man]

And someone clearly bleached the pages too.

Don't be an a*s*s, Dan (no pun intended). I'm not taking issue with CGC giving a different grade or different PQ.

 

I mean, if something changed on the CGC label it was absolutely 100% done deliberately by someone. Right?

I think there's a high likelihood that the provenance was intentionally "lost". Do you disagree?

 

The buyer now has to bear the cost and burden IF THEY WANT TO RE-SLAB AND RE-SELL it. If you're happy with the book, and you know it's the Church copy then who gives a rat's ?

Well, the answer is I WOULD like to sell it, and am NOT happy with the book, now that I know it's just another pressed POS. So yes, I guess it will be yours truly that has to bear the cost and burden of reslabbing the thing with the MH provenance if and when I sell it. That should make you happy, right?

 

And just dealing with the conceptual issue, what if I hadn't been the buyer and hadn't noticed the "Colo Acct" stamp and then researched accordingly? What if it had been some guy like some of Richard's examples who had no idea it was the MH copy? I thought you were into the whole provenance and historical aspect of collecting, so I'm surprised that you are actively hostile to my indignation that the book could have just disappeared from the rolls, as it were.

 

but as pieces of s_it go, it's awful purdy.

 

a 9.4 book, white. and he knows there is a 9.2 church book underneath the alleged press. but it's a pos now. man, it would be hard to completely lose one's credibility faster than that. i dare any of y'all to beat it.

[DrWatson]

I can see it as a possible labeling error. I have received books from CGC where certain designations were mentioned on the submission form; 2nd printing, variant cover or pedigree notation and left off the label.

 

All it took was an e-mail, PM or phone call and the problem was corrected for free. I did have to get the book to CGC for them to correct the mistake. To save on shipping, I either waited and sent it in with my next submission or had one of my slimebag friends hand carry it to CGC, pick it up and bring it to me at a convention. That's only if I deemed it something to be of concern. (Translation: concern = monetary importance later on down the line.)

[buttock]

And someone clearly bleached the pages too.

Don't be an a*s*s, Dan (no pun intended). I'm not taking issue with CGC giving a different grade or different PQ.

 

I mean, if something changed on the CGC label it was absolutely 100% done deliberately by someone. Right?

I think there's a high likelihood that the provenance was intentionally "lost". Do you disagree?

 

The buyer now has to bear the cost and burden IF THEY WANT TO RE-SLAB AND RE-SELL it. If you're happy with the book, and you know it's the Church copy then who gives a rat's ?

Well, the answer is I WOULD like to sell it, and am NOT happy with the book, now that I know it's just another pressed POS. So yes, I guess it will be yours truly that has to bear the cost and burden of reslabbing the thing with the MH provenance if and when I sell it. That should make you happy, right?

 

And just dealing with the conceptual issue, what if I hadn't been the buyer and hadn't noticed the "Colo Acct" stamp and then researched accordingly? What if it had been some guy like some of Richard's examples who had no idea it was the MH copy? I thought you were into the whole provenance and historical aspect of collecting, so I'm surprised that you are actively hostile to my indignation that the book could have just disappeared from the rolls, as it were.

 

I am into the historical aspect of collecting, but primarily in the fashion as it relates to the contents of the comics. I couldn't care less if it's the Church, if it's that nice and that well preserved I'm just as happy. All the "Church" designation does is tell me about how nice I should expect it to be. If you have a Church book that has been sitting in a hot attic for 3 decades and is now tanned and ugly, does the pedigree designation still mean anything? No.

 

A "pedigree" is just like a letter or number grade. It's a concept we've come up with to try and convey a description of the book to someone else. When I tell you I have a Church book, that should immediately inform you that this book is flat, clean, glossy, and has nice paper. What is irrelevant is the fact that it was bought and stored by Edgar Church. I mean, come on. Where's the excitement in a guy who hoarded books in stacks, and probably never read or appreciated them?

 

And all this fuss over a Rockford? While structurally nice, Rockfords aren't exactly highly sought after as far as pedigrees go.

 

The guys in Richard's examples are people I'd like to meet. They like the books for what they are, not for how much they're worth or whether or not they've been pressed. They don't have to get pretty little holders for them to validate them to their friends. "Ooh, look. CGC approves of my comic. CGC says mine is better than yours."

 

I'm not sure why the fact that it's been pressed is much of an issue to you. It's a damn nice copy. If you can't appreciate that, then maybe you need to take a break.

[nearmint]

Well, the answer is I WOULD like to sell it, and am NOT happy with the book, now that I know it's just another pressed POS.

 

There are people that get angry about nondisclosure.

Their are people that get angry about profiteers engaging in the crack/press/resub game.

Finally, there are people that just flat out hate pressing.

You're in that last group, Tim, and the vast majority of people here on the boards just can't relate to that visceral hatred for the practice. It's a hard stance to take, and I fear you'll be butting heads with a lot of folks over it.