Fake Mile High book - or double?

[Arty]

Two mile high books...is this fake or double? Auction link

 

 

 

This must be real - note style in hand-written Church code+ fresh colors auction link 2

 

 

 

Were there any doubles in Church collection?

 

Note that fake? book has a same code D34 . Coincidense or counterfeit?

[Timely]

Apparently there are 3 of them, because the MH copy in the Gerber P-J is coded and is NOT EITHER of those copies!

 

I did know of two different copies, as years ago I saw one of them in an old Overstreet Guide, color section, and it was different than the one in Gerber.

 

The 7.5 copy may be an error!

 

Timely

[Timely]

After doing some investigating (which only took me all of 2 minutes to do) the 4 Most #2 7.5 copy IS NOT a Mile High. It was quite easy to figure it out once I saw the full scan of the front and back cover. Haspel errored on this one. Link below.

I wish CGC had a better MH expert, this isn't their first pedigree error!

 

Timely

 

http://apps.heritagecomics.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=805&Lot_No=5120&zoom=1&sid=34D7D63BD20DEFC4D542528A03030294

[tb]

The only case of two Church copies I've heard of was the pre-hero More Fun that someone pointed out last year (clearly different, but both looked like Church copies).

 

If it is a mistake by CGC, it would not be the first time. This also happened with an Adventure 82 from the Cage auction: CGC removed the pedigree listing when the book was resubmitted by Heritage a few months later.

 

 

[Arty]

The only case of two Church copies I've heard of was the pre-hero More Fun that someone pointed out last year (clearly different, but both looked like Church copies).

 

Do you remember what issue # it is.

[tb]

39

[1962]

Actually if you look closely at the original Church list you will note that duplicate copies pop up every once in a while. Examples: Detective 179, 180, 192; Sensation 81 etc. Also if you are thinking that Chuck may have accidently repeated himself, note the different grades listed for the Detectives 179, 180 and the Sensation 81. Considering how many books were in the Church collection this does not surprise me at all. How would Edgar keep track of everything each time he went to the newstand, considering sometimes copies of particular issues would linger on the newstands for a couple of months.

[lou_fine]

If it is a mistake by CGC, it would not be the first time. This also happened with an Adventure 82 from the Cage auction: CGC removed the pedigree listing when the book was resubmitted by Heritage a few months later.

 

Yes, this reminds me of the time I saw a so-called "Pennysylvania" copy of Dectective #78 on the Comic Link web site a few years ago. It had been CGC graded with a PLOD at something like 7.5 VF-. I thought this was strange since I had picked up the Pennysylvania copy of 'Tec 78 from Diamond back in the mid to late 90's. My copy was a high grade copy with the classic "P" on the cover, while the copy on the CL site was a rather bad imitation similar to the 4most 7.5 shown in the above post.

 

Sent an e-mail to Josh at CL explaining that I had the Pennysylvania copy and gave him the details for my purchase. Josh sent me back an e-mail informing me that all pedigrees are determined by CGC and if I had any concerns, it should be addressed with CGC. Sent a note to CGC informing them of the situation and never heard back from them. This may not be their fault, however, since I had sent it through their "Ask a Question" link at the time and they may never had received it.

 

Bottom-line: It's still buyer beware even when it comes to CGC certified books!

[metropoliscomics]

I bought the 9.2 Church copy and did a double take when a saw a second copy pop up at a later date. Took one look at the scan of the VF- and knew it was not a Mile High.

 

Stephen

[Timely]

I bought the 9.2 Church copy and did a double take when a saw a second copy pop up at a later date. Took one look at the scan of the VF- and knew it was not a Mile High.

 

Stephen

 

Holy [!@#%^&^], are we agreeing on something!?!

 

Timely

[PedigreeMan]

I bought the 9.2 Church copy and did a double take when a saw a second copy pop up at a later date. Took one look at the scan of the VF- and knew it was not a Mile High.

 

Stephen

 

 

Between this screw up, Timely's unlabeled Pennsylvania copy, and the stack of slabbed but not-identified-as Salidas I picked up last month, I have to wonder if it isn't time Mr. Haspel and crew took a vacation.

 

I am truly upset over this latest spate of errors. I realize CGC has supposedly lessened the market for pedigrees (a 9.6 is a 9.6?), but that doesn't mean they should be treated as lackadaisically as they apparently are.

 

Alan

[Mephisto]

I bought the 9.2 Church copy and did a double take when a saw a second copy pop up at a later date. Took one look at the scan of the VF- and knew it was not a Mile High.

 

Stephen

 

 

Between this screw up, Timely's unlabeled Pennsylvania copy, and the stack of slabbed but not-identified-as Salidas I picked up last month, I have to wonder if it isn't time Mr. Haspel and crew took a vacation.

 

I am truly upset over this latest spate of errors. I realize CGC has supposedly lessened the market for pedigrees (a 9.6 is a 9.6?), but that doesn't mean they should be treated as lackadaisically as they apparently are.

 

 

 

Well they messed this one up awhile ago since it's got the new label so it appears they have been need of a vacation for a really long time.

[ghoulaid]

I bought the 9.2 Church copy and did a double take when a saw a second copy pop up at a later date. Took one look at the scan of the VF- and knew it was not a Mile High.

 

Stephen

 

 

Between this screw up, Timely's unlabeled Pennsylvania copy, and the stack of slabbed but not-identified-as Salidas I picked up last month, I have to wonder if it isn't time Mr. Haspel and crew took a vacation.

 

I am truly upset over this latest spate of errors. I realize CGC has supposedly lessened the market for pedigrees (a 9.6 is a 9.6?), but that doesn't mean they should be treated as lackadaisically as they apparently are.

 

Alan

 

Wouldn't it be in the best interests of the hobby for CGC to correct erroneous labels (free of charge) for the sake of historical accuracy? I think so. We certainly don't need fake Church books floating around (or any other pedigree) and labeled as real. Conversely, any of the recognized pedigrees should be properly labeled as such.

[Mephisto]

I bought the 9.2 Church copy and did a double take when a saw a second copy pop up at a later date. Took one look at the scan of the VF- and knew it was not a Mile High.

 

Stephen

 

 

Between this screw up, Timely's unlabeled Pennsylvania copy, and the stack of slabbed but not-identified-as Salidas I picked up last month, I have to wonder if it isn't time Mr. Haspel and crew took a vacation.

 

I am truly upset over this latest spate of errors. I realize CGC has supposedly lessened the market for pedigrees (a 9.6 is a 9.6?), but that doesn't mean they should be treated as lackadaisically as they apparently are.

 

Alan

 

Wouldn't it be in the best interests of the hobby for CGC to correct erroneous labels (free of charge) for the sake of historical accuracy? I think so. We certainly don't need fake Church books floating around (or any other pedigree) and labeled as real. Conversely, any of the recognized pedigrees should be properly labeled as such.

 

Not everyone would be willing to send it back even if it was free. It would still cost money to ship the book plus you wouldn't have a Mile High any more and that name might mean a little something should you decide to seel the book.

[tth2]

Doesn't CGC require some proof of provenance in order to give pedigree status to a book? It seems this thread is somehow assuming that CGC would know, just from looking at a book, whether it was a pedigree or not. And while they should be more careful, aren't we missing the real culprit, which is the person who submitted the book to CGC and provided bogus proof of pedigree status? Last time I checked, fraud and forgery were crimes.

[Mephisto]

Doesn't CGC require some proof of provenance in order to give pedigree status to a book? It seems this thread is somehow assuming that CGC would know, just from looking at a book, whether it was a pedigree or not. And while they should be more careful, aren't we missing the real culprit, which is the person who submitted the book to CGC and provided bogus proof of pedigree status? Last time I checked, fraud and forgery were crimes.

 

I didn't think any form of paper work really mattered to them since they ignore certificates of authenticity for books like DF's. Besides some pedigree books probably don't even have any paper work. I assumed they went by markings and quality in making a final decision on determining a pedigree.

[PedigreeMan]

Doesn't CGC require some proof of provenance in order to give pedigree status to a book?

 

Nope. There have been many instances of CGC labelling a pedigree without provenance. Tons of books out there have very distinct markings.

 

 

It seems this thread is somehow assuming that CGC would know, just from looking at a book, whether it was a pedigree or not.

 

They do, or at least should. Again, taking all of the various distinct markings into account and coupling them with other physical characteristics (white pages, smell, presence of dust or sun shadows, etc.) should enable a knowledgable person to ascertain within a very reasonable doubt that a particular book is a pedigree. You just have to know what you're looking for. Just because someone doesn't know it's a pedigree doesn't make it any less so!

 

 

And while they should be more careful, aren't we missing the real culprit, which is the person who submitted the book to CGC and provided bogus proof of pedigree status? Last time I checked, fraud and forgery were crimes.

 

Fraud and forgery imply intent, which is why it would pretty much take video evidence of someone like co*mic-ke*ys actually color touching a book they state under oath they "didn't know was restored" to convict them. It's entirely plausible that the person who submitted the phony Mile High was sold it by someone reputable and consequently truly believed it to be legit. There are no certificates for the original collection, so it's primarily one "expert's" word against another's. Now if I were to make counterfeit scans of my Okajima or Gaines certs and submit bogus books covered by them, I could be legitimately prosecuted. But again, with Mile Highs it's tricky.

 

All of this still ignores the issue of Timely's unlabelled Pennsylvania or my unidentified Salidas. In both instances the books involved have such distinct markings that anyone with a passing knowledge of the pedigrees could have identified them. In the Pennsylvania case, anyone reading Matt Nelson's article should have asked, "Isn't that a Penn?" Perhaps CGC needs to hire themselves some more "pedigree experts?"

 

Alan

[PedigreeMan]

[nearmint]

I didn't take any chances when I submitted the Action #55 Church Copy, which doesn't have the Church books' usual distinctive markings. I showed the book to Gary Carter in San Diego, then mailed him color xeroxes, which he signed off on, then sent those in with the book to CGC.

[Dr_Neff]