Jerry's All Star #8 better pics

[1962]

Then I see another photo of you with all the books laid out in a room I would call cluttered at best. But right there in plain sight on the table by the monitor are 2 tupperware containers of glue, a tacking iron, a brush and a magnification loupe.

 

Even if you didn't apply glue to the AS 8 yourself, this photo is incredibly damning.

 

I've read both threads, but I'm missing or forgetting something--why is this damning?

 

Some people assume that because a tub of glue is sitting by, that BLB used the glue to fix the All Star #8. Frankly I don't get it. Now if you actually had a picture of him applying the glue to the All Star #8 that would be a different story.

 

you're right, he could be just scrapbooking

 

All I know is if I ever went into court and tried to use that picture without anything else to make the assumption that BLB restored the All Star #8, the judge would laugh at me.

 

Who's taking him to court, might want to leave 1962 and join 2010

 

Your missing my point. Like the saying goes "When you assume something you make an OUT OF YOU AND ME." I get tired when some people make assumptions out of rumors, pictures, etc. If you want to assume something because of a picture your entitled to your opinion. I on the otherhand need more than a simple picture, rumor, etc. before I am going to believe something is true.I have had to too many life experiences to think otherwise

 

and you probably haven't even had a fla. gators football lecture from g.a.tor yet. you don't know diddly about life experiences until he explains to you how a ref's call cost fla. the nat'l title in the '96 fiesta bowl, won by the 'huskers 62-24 [i didn't type 32, or 42, or 52---that's right, 62].

 

[Ze-man]

Then I see another photo of you with all the books laid out in a room I would call cluttered at best. But right there in plain sight on the table by the monitor are 2 tupperware containers of glue, a tacking iron, a brush and a magnification loupe.

 

Even if you didn't apply glue to the AS 8 yourself, this photo is incredibly damning.

 

I've read both threads, but I'm missing or forgetting something--why is this damning?

 

Some people assume that because a tub of glue is sitting by, that BLB used the glue to fix the All Star #8. Frankly I don't get it. Now if you actually had a picture of him applying the glue to the All Star #8 that would be a different story.

 

you're right, he could be just scrapbooking

 

All I know is if I ever went into court and tried to use that picture without anything else to make the assumption that BLB restored the All Star #8, the judge would laugh at me.

 

Who's taking him to court, might want to leave 1962 and join 2010

 

Your missing my point. Like the saying goes "When you assume something you make an OUT OF YOU AND ME." I get tired when some people make assumptions out of rumors, pictures, etc. If you want to assume something because of a picture your entitled to your opinion. I on the otherhand need more than a simple picture, rumor, etc. before I am going to believe something is true.I have had to too many life experiences to think otherwise

 

I for one never assumed, or was trying to prove anything.

 

Bob said that only he and 2 other people handled the books after being in Bails possesion for decades. The AS 8 could have been restored decades ago, or while in Bob's possession. One of the two, or a combination of both. Since Bobs table is full of the necessary tools and fresh materials to do the work I do not think it exactly a stretch to at least consider the possibility Bob worked on the book.

 

But that was not really my point when I said the photo was damning. I was talking more about the overall precarious storage condition of his comic room. Not to mention the salty peanut can and tape gun right next to all the books. I guess I should have said "even if you didn't do any work on the AS 8, that photo is still incredibly damaging" Which is still probably a bad choice of words.

 

Regardless, posting that photo did nothing to help his case, and even went as far as to cast doubt (in my mind at least) on everything he has said so far.

 

[1962]

Then I see another photo of you with all the books laid out in a room I would call cluttered at best. But right there in plain sight on the table by the monitor are 2 tupperware containers of glue, a tacking iron, a brush and a magnification loupe.

 

Even if you didn't apply glue to the AS 8 yourself, this photo is incredibly damning.

 

I've read both threads, but I'm missing or forgetting something--why is this damning?

 

Some people assume that because a tub of glue is sitting by, that BLB used the glue to fix the All Star #8. Frankly I don't get it. Now if you actually had a picture of him applying the glue to the All Star #8 that would be a different story.

 

you're right, he could be just scrapbooking

 

All I know is if I ever went into court and tried to use that picture without anything else to make the assumption that BLB restored the All Star #8, the judge would laugh at me.

 

Who's taking him to court, might want to leave 1962 and join 2010

 

Your missing my point. Like the saying goes "When you assume something you make an OUT OF YOU AND ME." I get tired when some people make assumptions out of rumors, pictures, etc. If you want to assume something because of a picture your entitled to your opinion. I on the otherhand need more than a simple picture, rumor, etc. before I am going to believe something is true.I have had to too many life experiences to think otherwise

 

I for one never assumed anything.

 

Bob said that only he and 2 other people handled the books after being in Bails possesion for decades. The AS 8 could have been restored decades ago, or while in Bob's possesion. One of the two. And since Bobs table is full of the necessary tools and fresh materials to do the work, I do not think it exactly a stretch to at least consider the possibility Bob was the one who did the work.

 

But that was not really my point when I said the photo was damning. I was talking more about the overall precarious storage condition of his comic room. Not to mention the salty peanut can and tape gun right next to all the books. I guess I should have said "even if you didn't do any work on the AS 8, that photo is still incredibly damning" Which is still probably a bad choice of words.

 

Regardless, posting that photo did nothing to help his case, and even went as far as to cast doubt (in my mind at least) everything he has said so far.

 

I agree. Posting the photo did nothing to help Bob's case. I don't know why he posted the photo of himself and the All Star collection, since the photo itself has nothing to do with the issue of the alleged damage to the AS #8 by CGC

[rockman2008]

Darn peanut gallery. Darn pixies.

 

Mean girly man.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=191766&Number=4006726#Post4006726

[BLBcomics-migration]

Thanks for all the input. Truly appreciated. I was off line for a day or so, as I have to rest the hip joints constantly which are still healing. There are too many posts here to respond individually, though I will do my best to reply to much of what I read so far. If I miss some one's thoughts, please enlighten me.

 

There was nothing done to any of Jerry's All Stars regardless of what some posted here. The All Stars were brought in by me from Detroit, were in my warehouse for a short period of time, then flown down and hand delivered to CGC HQ.

 

The tacking iron & such one sees in the pic was out as I had been working on some ripped up (as in multiple pieces) Victorian era comics material scored off eBay which needed to be placed back together, so I could properly research the material, as well as get proper scans made of the interior comic strips from circa 1850s for inclusion in the articles and price indexes I have been compiling with some friends for the Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide as well as my own comics business history book I have started to work on again recently after a hiatus of a couple years.

 

Some of you may have seen, and maybe even read, the now 72 page section of proper comics history I have been honored since OPG #27 1997 to be asked to present to the comics world so as to explore the roots of where the origins of the comic strip and comic book came from. There remains much to explore in the USA comic strip world prior to the advent of the Yellow Kid, much less Funnies On Parade and the comic books of the 30s 40s 50s which most of you seem to think are more important than the far rarer 1800s comic strip material which had inferior printing scenarios for the most part

 

I have all sorts of magnifying glasses to get better eye ball look-sees at material printed in some cases more than 150 years ago. Am pushing 60 years old now, eyeballs do not respond like they used to.

 

To hint that I did anything as related in some of these posts to any of Jerry's All Stars is absurd. For any one to say that the All Stars laid out for a few quick pics in any way damaged any of them is stupid. Sorry. And I would never cut up a page of Superman #1 to obtain a single panel.

 

These "panorama" pics were taken in my (previous) warehouse which contained seven rooms. Most of the other rooms were set up with shelving for proper storage. Plus a room with computers and scanners for placing stuff out for sale on the internet. What you see here is the first room one entered when coming in the front door to my (then) warehouse. Then there was the shipping room with all sorts of mailing equipment.

 

Recently completed moving everything to a larger 4000 square foot warehouse with everything now on one floor. Mostly one huge space with a couple smaller office rooms. I still have a lot of trouble with stairs bending the hip joints. Moving was the only logical choice I have at present.

 

Re grading concepts, one only has to check out my eBay feedback to ascertain the buyers who have purchased seem to all like my grading from high to low.

 

http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback2&userid=blbcomics&&sspagename=VIP:feedback&ftab=FeedbackAsSeller

 

And, yes, when I was seeking to get my hip joints repaired, I was inside the CGC threads for a while offering material. So what? I was posting to a lot of other scenarios as well. As well as attempting to still do shows, which I had to curtail since moving two tons of stuff in and out of shows proved to be a bridge too far.

 

Trying to do the recent Wondercon and C2E2 in Chicago told me I cannot do shows any more like I used to. Those were my first attempts since obtaining surgeries back Oct 20 2009. I have more healing to finish up on yet. And a web site to get off the ground. Have some 20,000+ vintage items yet to scan, describe, and place on the net.

 

Robert Beerbohm

www.BLBcomics.com

 

 

 

 

[Wayne-Tec]

To hint that I did anything as related in some of these posts to any of Jerry's All Stars is absurd. For any one to say that the All Stars laid out for a few quick pics in any way damaged any of them is stupid. Sorry. And I would never cut up a page of Superman #1 to obtain a single panel.

 

I never said you damaged the books; I said if anything had happened it would probably be so miniscule that it wouldn't even be noticeable but my concern wasn't that you damaged the books; simply that the care you used when photographing them wasn't using as much care as you could have. I even pointed out a few simple ways that I felt would have been more careful (for instance, not standing the AS #25 up in the fashion you did, not having stacks of comics hanging off the side of a table, etc.).

 

If anything, you could say these claims are being way to over-protective but that is different from being incorrect. If my suggestions would lead to more harm coming to the books, let me know otherwise I think the issue is that I'm either correct (and you weren't as concerned as I'd be) or I'm simply over-protective (and such measures wouldn't be reasonably necessary).

 

As far as the Superman #1 panel, that doesn't pertain to this conversation at all really. I think the point one was trying to make is how could I criticize the way you handled the All-Stars if I paid to have a loose page clipped; but the two are simply not related.

 

I paid a percentage of a collector's asking price to purchase a percentage of the piece he offered for sale. I've since owned both the panel and now the remainder of the page (purchased later) and neither have or would be laid out in the fashion photographed.

[sfcityduck]

I think the issue is that I'm either correct (and you weren't as concerned as I'd be) or I'm simply over-protective (and such measures wouldn't be reasonably necessary).

 

Bingo! Which makes your criticism incorrect.

[Wayne-Tec]

I think the issue is that I'm either correct (and you weren't as concerned as I'd be) or I'm simply over-protective (and such measures wouldn't be reasonably necessary).

 

Bingo! Which makes your criticism incorrect.

 

I understand where you're coming from and I was being honest before when I said that I wasn't trying to be a pain. If this were an instance of a collector simply enjoying his books in whatever way he saw fit, I might feel the same way about the handling but probably wouldn't say much as it would be his right.

 

The reason I brought up the point was because he had an issue with CGC in regards to careful handling. Of course the handling of bagged and boarded books vs. grading a raw book is very different as that much is obvious; but it did bring up the issue of carefully handling one's books.

 

My argument would be that it isn't all that unreasonable to point out that the All-Star #25 wasn't laid out or supported all that carefully and I don't think it was all that unreasonable to point out the books hanging off the side of a table (although I doubt those were high-grade All-Stars; but it does speak to careful handling) might not be the best way to stack them.

 

Do I think we're going to see 9.0's turning into 4.0's? Of course not. But is it possible that some very slight damage could occur from a book like the AS #25 falling over or something heavy being knocked off a close by table? Sure.

 

Hence, my point about not using as much care as possible. I'm not saying keep the books locked away in a vault never to be seen and I'm really not trying to be mean here but...

 

this

 

this

 

and this

 

 

do not appear to be showing as much care as one reasonably could. I feel bad about even highlighting the parts of the pictures but you're making it seem as though there was no issue and no risk at all in the way the books appear to have been cared for in the photograph. If we found out that this is how CGC looked after the books we submitted to them, I think a number of people would be upset.

 

Again I've said so before but I apologize if I'm coming across as picking on petty things as I'm not meaning to offend or insult Bob. I believe he had the absolute best of intentions and I don't think he damaged the books.

 

My point was simply that more care could have been used and that something could have happened. Unlikely? Sure; but why even take the chance with books as nice as those when a few simple steps could have reduced the risk?

[Scrooge]

Boy, what must you think of me then?

 

[143ksk]

I think he's talking about books that are worth something

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[*paull*]

My point was simply that more care could have been used and that something could have happened. Unlikely? Sure; but why even take the chance with books as nice as those when a few simple steps could have reduced the risk?

 

Go read the Group Shot thread and tell all the Board Members that posted similar photos with $1K, $10K, and $100K books that they aren't taking care of them properly.

[Transplant]

I think he's talking about books that are worth something

 

Really. Some people don't even bag and board that drek.

[G.A.tor]

I think he's talking about books that are worth something

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sfcityduck]

The reason I brought up the point was because he had an issue with CGC in regards to careful handling. Of course the handling of bagged and boarded books vs. grading a raw book is very different as that much is obvious; but it did bring up the issue of carefully handling one's books.

 

The reason you brought it up was to portray BLB as a hypocrit for criticizing the CGC. You previously stated:

 

Now, why am I pointing this out? Not to be a pain or to randomly find something to complain about. But it seems as though on one hand, you're accusing CGC of not being as careful as they should have been all the while in the pictures, the book (as well as others) certainly don't appear to being cared for as well as they could have been.

 

But, as should now be apparent to you, your criticism of BLB's mode of displaying the books is unreasonable. So your criticism is unsupportable.

 

It's also misguided. CGC is essentially in a position of "strict liability." If they damage a book, they are liable. Any poor handling by the CGC can't be excused by poor handling by BLB ... unless it can be shown that it was BLB's poor handling that damaged the book. But, that's not your (or, as far as I know, CGC's) contention.

 

For that matter, your criticism wouldn't have any validity even if BLB used an All-Star 25 as a placemat. Why? Because BLB's complaint is that CGC damaged an All-Star 8 and 9. It doesn't matter if BLB at some point spilled coffee on an All Star 25. CGC has an obligation not to damage books in its care no matter how their owners treat book in those owners care. Your accusations of hypocrisy are not only unsupported, but illogical.

 

And, frankly, they just seem petty.

 

I really don't have a dog in this fight, but some of the criticism of these longtime collectors on this thread (personal appearance and supposed reckless handling of books when they are just doing what almost all collectors and dealers do) seems beyond the pale to me.

 

Hence my comments.

 

 

[Scrooge]

I think he's talking about books that are worth something

 

Really. Some people don't even bag and board that drek.

Oh, mine are bagged only b/c Bedrock sent me free mylars ... otherwise, they wouldn't be bagged.

 

Oh, @143 (the ARCHIE collector)

 

 

[Crowzilla]

Boy, what must you think of me then?

 

I'll repost this old photo also and maybe we can put AF15kid into a coma...

The angle on the Bat #5 alone should sent his blood pressure soaring, and when he realizes how close to the edge of the cushion the Action #13 is, his eyes will roll back into his head, while will then explode when he sees the unbagged Cap #1s, MF 52, All Star #3s, and Tec #33s just laying against the couch.

 

[Crowzilla]

I hear you but I think that's beside the point. richard evans had a comment about that book being restored with respect to the shading near the staple that was both objective and extremely convincing.

 

Pretty sure i was the first person to post the evidence of the color touch on the book (and that was certainly before I knew CGC had given it a purple label).

 

But Richard Evans was the first to comment that CGC has already given $2000 in restitution by way of grading fee reimbursement - something which has been ignored by Bob during all of this.

 

Since Bob hasn't said which part of his nether-regions he is pulling the $10,000 figure from, I will speculate that it is based on his errant memory of someone stating that the #8 could be the highest graded copy.

I couldn't find that comment when looking over the original thread, but obviously it was way off target. Even if unrestored and the bottom staple wasn't popped, the book looks like a 5.0-5.5. FMV on an unrestored example might be in the $10,000 range, but since this example was restored even before the staple pull (whenever that may have occurred) - it is quite obvious this book never has been worth $10,000, let alone could anywhere near that amount of damage have been done to it.

 

It looks as if CGC has already stepped up to the plate by purchasing the All Star #7 for FMV, and have most likely over-compensated for the All Star #8 via the $2000 in grading fees.

 

 

[sfcityduck]

Fun picture!

 

[G.A.tor]

Boy, what must you think of me then?

 

I'll repost this old photo also and maybe we can put AF15kid into a coma...

The angle on the Bat #5 alone should sent his blood pressure soaring, and when he realizes how close to the edge of the cushion the Action #13 is, his eyes will roll back into his head, while will then explode when he sees the unbagged Cap #1s, MF 52, All Star #3s, and Tec #33s just laying against the couch.

 

alright sean, where are the action 1's and tec 27's

[Wayne-Tec]

The reason I brought up the point was because he had an issue with CGC in regards to careful handling. Of course the handling of bagged and boarded books vs. grading a raw book is very different as that much is obvious; but it did bring up the issue of carefully handling one's books.

 

The reason you brought it up was to portray BLB as a hypocrit for criticizing the CGC. You previously stated:

 

Now, why am I pointing this out? Not to be a pain or to randomly find something to complain about. But it seems as though on one hand, you're accusing CGC of not being as careful as they should have been all the while in the pictures, the book (as well as others) certainly don't appear to being cared for as well as they could have been.

 

But, as should now be apparent to you, your criticism of BLB's mode of displaying the books is unreasonable. So your criticism is unsupportable.

 

It's also misguided. CGC is essentially in a position of "strict liability." If they damage a book, they are liable. Any poor handling by the CGC can't be excused by poor handling by BLB ... unless it can be shown that it was BLB's poor handling that damaged the book. But, that's not your (or, as far as I know, CGC's) contention.

 

For that matter, your criticism wouldn't have any validity even if BLB used an All-Star 25 as a placemat. Why? Because BLB's complaint is that CGC damaged an All-Star 8 and 9. It doesn't matter if BLB at some point spilled coffee on an All Star 25. CGC has an obligation not to damage books in its care no matter how their owners treat book in those owners care. Your accusations of hypocrisy are not only unsupported, but illogical.

 

And, frankly, they just seem petty.

 

I really don't have a dog in this fight, but some of the criticism of these longtime collectors on this thread (personal appearance and supposed reckless handling of books when they are just doing what almost all collectors and dealers do) seems beyond the pale to me.

 

Hence my comments.

 

 

The first thing I'd like to address, is that at no point did I make fun of anyone's appearence. As a matter of fact (and you can look back to my prior posts) I said that I did not find the comments about the man's appearence to be the least bit humorous. I assume your confusing my posts with someone elses there.

 

Now, the two quotes you compared at the top virtually mean the same thing. He was concerned with the way CGC handled two books in question all the while he himself did not appear to be using as much care as he could have himself.

 

You're right in that whatever he did to the books in his own private time has nothing to do with what CGC may have done. I already stated that I don't feel it was he who damaged the All-Star #8 and without being there, I honestly do not know what CGC did or didn't do.

 

My point rather is that it did seem to be a bit hypocritical to attack CGC's alleged lack of care when another type of lack in care appeared to be on display in the photographs. I didn't say that should prevent him from stating his case as the two are not directly related; just that there appeared to be a lack of care presented on both ends; even if they do not directly relate to one another.

 

Is that petty? I could understand why you might feel that way and have already apologized on multiple occasions as I do not want it to be taken that way. I do not know Bob or have any reason to have anything against Bob. As I've stated before, I believe he has the best of intentions.

 

As far as the other collectors who posted shots of their lay-outs, I'm sure in many of those instances if those were my books, I would handle them differently. But it is not my right to tell you how to handle and view your books. I didn't spend the money on them; you did. But this case is a bit different as many of the books in question do not (to the best of my knowledge) belong to Bob, and you guys are not the ones criticizing another groups careful handling.

 

If I can clear anything up, I'd be happy to. And by the above posted assumption that I was one of the people partaking in making fun of someone's appearence, I would imagine that it might be possible for there to be more confusion as perhaps I have not made myself as clear as I'd like to.

 

It's not my intention to insult, offend, or be petty to anyone here. If I have been, I'll be the first person to apologize for so doing.