Original owner collection Questions??

[VintageComics]

This is my Syd's JIM #89 bought for me through another board member from the original owner.

 

 

 

[namisgr]

This is my Syd's JIM #89 bought for me through another board member from the original owner.

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Actually, the "less hands" anything pass through, the better . . .

 

RMA's points are all well taken, but are not those of an OO "archivist", which many of us really view ourselves as.

 

There is nothing wrong with being an "OO" archivist.

 

And you're absolutely right, the "less hands", the better..well...perhaps, "easier" would be the better word.

 

Many, many coins are traced from the "original owners"....and all of Eliasberg's coins that he obtained as they came out during his lifetime were, of course, "original owner."

 

But Eliasberg has the distinction of being a "Bang Zoom" type collector: he was able to obtain the keys of the series for not a whole lot, but certainly not as they came out. (It is my understanding, based on BangZoom's thread, that he bought his first Golden Age book, Superman #9, in 1963. Someone please correct me if I have the details fuzzed.) There are a grand total of ZERO super keys in his collection that he obtained as a collector brand new, because they all came out before that time...and yet, his collection is considered, and rightly so, the "Edgar Church" of the coin world, and it is quite an honor to own one of these coins.

 

Virgil Brand, though not #1, is probably #2. At one point, he owned 40 Stellas

 

(Go ahead. I dare you to click that. You'll have to sign in, of course. And he owned FORTY of these!)

 

His collection would not be considred "original owner" either.

 

Would anyone on these boards seriously try to claim that BangZoom's collection isn't as historically significant, simply because he is not the "original owner" of it?

 

On the contrary, I challenge anyone to try it, and come up with logical rationale in doing so.

 

BangZoom, should he so desire, could DEFINITELY have his collection, painstakingly assembled as it was, be worthy of inclusion in a "pedigree" type situation.

 

Ian Levine, just for the SCOPE of his collection, could also rightfully be considered a pedigree under these definitions.

 

Now, with collecting comics, (instead of just buying them and not throwing them away), the water becomes muddy as to what was bought when it came out, and what was obtained second hand through dealers...so it starts to get very messy, especially as you move past the md 60's. 15 of my new Mutants #98s were "OO". But which 15, I'd be challenged to tell you, other than the 8 that ended up in 9.8 slabs. Should those count?

 

No, because I'm nobody. Maybe, if I become somebody someday, they might...but half of them have already been dispersed to other collectors.

 

Not that I am suggesting in any way that archiving original owner collections is in any way not a worthwhile endeavor. Indeed, as a historian, I think it's of the utmost importance, and vital to the understanding of the hobby.

 

BUT...how they, and "pedigree" collections, are viewed by collectors in the future may be...and probably should be...a bit different than we view them now.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Actually, I AM saying that an original owner collection can be guaranteed 100% to have books that haven't been pressed, cleaned, or restored - namely, books one has purchased themselves and brought to the market

 

This is the opposite of what I, and others, are saying.

 

No one is saying that SPECIFIC collections, like yours, cannot be guaranteed (by you) to be untampered with in any way.

 

Obviously, you can do that all day long with YOUR collection. I can do that with mine, too.

 

The pont that is being made is that, IN GENERAL, it is only less likely...not guaranteed...that OO collections are untampered with.

 

For example...no one can now guarantee that Church books have not been pressed. They've been through too many hands over the years.

 

Is it LIKELY?

 

No, of course not.

 

But is it possible? Absolutely! After all, pressing was not invented after CGC.

 

As for books being brought to market by dealers who purchased them from an original owner, the unblemished nature of the books depends on the dealer. Still, there isn't nearly the monetary incentive to press OO books and then sell them raw as there is to press,encapsulate, and sell.

 

I think the whole "sell them raw pressed" is muddying up the discussion. I don't think many dealers, POST CGC, would sell raw pressed books...it's certainly possible, but not very probable, I should think...

 

...but that certainly prevented no one from doing it before CGC.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Some of F_T's OO books from that collection that he graded as 8.5's and 9.0's were coming back as 9.4's if I remember correctly.

 

You won't find a better grader or seller to deal with than Nick.

 

Although the term OO may be over used, if you can verify the books as OO there is a definite premium that some people will pay to have them.

 

(thumbs u

 

 

BTW how does one verify it was bought by them? Do they have a receipt?? Unlike a classic car that is a registerd item when purchased ,,a comic book is not so wheres the verification process ? Because someone said so?

 

Now that is a

 

My Vampi #1, SS Frazetta 8.5, has the original receipt from the 1969 purchase in Michigan.

 

50 cents, plus 2 cents tax.

 

[divad]

Actually, the "less hands" anything pass through, the better . . .

 

RMA's points are all well taken, but are not those of an OO "archivist", which many of us really view ourselves as.

 

There is nothing wrong with being an "OO" archivist.

 

And you're absolutely right, the "less hands", the better..well...perhaps, "easier" would be the better word.

 

Many, many coins are traced from the "original owners"....and all of Eliasberg's coins that he obtained as they came out during his lifetime were, of course, "original owner."

 

But Eliasberg has the distinction of being a "Bang Zoom" type collector: he was able to obtain the keys of the series for not a whole lot, but certainly not as they came out. (It is my understanding, based on BangZoom's thread, that he bought his first Golden Age book, Superman #9, in 1963. Someone please correct me if I have the details fuzzed.) There are a grand total of ZERO super keys in his collection that he obtained as a collector brand new, because they all came out before that time...and yet, his collection is considered, and rightly so, the "Edgar Church" of the coin world, and it is quite an honor to own one of these coins.

 

Virgil Brand, though not #1, is probably #2. At one point, he owned 40 Stellas

 

(Go ahead. I dare you to click that. You'll have to sign in, of course. And he owned FORTY of these!)

 

His collection would not be considred "original owner" either.

 

Would anyone on these boards seriously try to claim that BangZoom's collection isn't as historically significant, simply because he is not the "original owner" of it?

 

On the contrary, I challenge anyone to try it, and come up with logical rationale in doing so.

 

BangZoom, should he so desire, could DEFINITELY have his collection, painstakingly assembled as it was, be worthy of inclusion in a "pedigree" type situation.

 

Ian Levine, just for the SCOPE of his collection, could also rightfully be considered a pedigree under these definitions.

 

Now, with collecting comics, (instead of just buying them and not throwing them away), the water becomes muddy as to what was bought when it came out, and what was obtained second hand through dealers...so it starts to get very messy, especially as you move past the md 60's. 15 of my new Mutants #98s were "OO". But which 15, I'd be challenged to tell you, other than the 8 that ended up in 9.8 slabs. Should those count?

 

No, because I'm nobody. Maybe, if I become somebody someday, they might...but half of them have already been dispersed to other collectors.

 

Not that I am suggesting in any way that archiving original owner collections is in any way not a worthwhile endeavor. Indeed, as a historian, I think it's of the utmost importance, and vital to the understanding of the hobby.

 

BUT...how they, and "pedigree" collections, are viewed by collectors in the future may be...and probably should be...a bit different than we view them now.

 

Again, all good points, yet somewhat tangential to the points that namisgr, trmoore and I were making. It's pleasant to have a conversation where it isn't assumed that the poster is diametrically opposed to your opinion.

 

I can't quite grasp the coins analogy, as they are not a similar collectible, i.e. purchased retail from the publisher / distributor.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Again, all good points, yet somewhat tangential to the points that namisgr, trmoore and I were making. It's pleasant to have a conversation where it isn't assumed that the poster is diametrically opposed to your opinion.

 

Perhaps tangential to your points, but not tangential to the thread, which was "what makes "original owner" collections special?" It is, and has been, my contention that the concept of "original owners" as "pedigrees" will be replaced, as they have been in other fields, with the broader concept of "famous provenance"...original owners retaining their pre-eminence, but because of the impracticality, and eventual impossibility, of adding undiscovered original owners, once the field is well established and thoroughly documented, "collecting" will move on to "who was the most famous person (and I don't mean popular fame...Steve Borock has no popular fame, but he is quite famous in our circles) to own this book."

 

I can't quite grasp the coins analogy, as they are not a similar collectible, i.e. purchased retail from the publisher / distributor.

 

A coin would have an "original owner" if a person obtained it brand new the year it was made, before it hit circulation, usually from the normal distribution methods of coinage, i.e. banks or other vendors ordering such from the Treasury Dept. (but not necessarily limited to that manner.)

 

An original owner comic would be obtained in much the same way, new, directly out of the distribution channel for periodicals, whether that would be a newsstand, a convenience store, a grocery store, or whatever method they were available.

 

But...again....the emergence of "the collector" muddies the water enough to dismantle the concept of new and undiscovered "original owners" after a certain point (which may or may not have occurred in history yet, but likely has.)

[peewee22]

This is my Syd's JIM #89 bought for me through another board member from the original owner.

 

 

 

My fave Thor cover Roy (and I see those whitish page edges)

 

Fabby !!!!

[divad]

Fabby !!!!