New pedigree - Suscha News

[Scrooge]

To me, the "era of comic collecting" is from 1965 onwards.

 

What happened in or around 1965? One of the significant milestones is the first Overstreet guide in 1970.

 

More awareness, Marvel starting to get traction for the medium being not simply for kids, proto-comic shops popping up across the country, the booming of the fanzine world, so nothing particular but an acceleration of the organization of the collecting / hobby side of the medium.

[cheetah]

There have been a few pedigree's that just make no sense (to me). If a pedigree is made up of some books in the collection that were bought as back issues that doesn't qualify to me as a pedigree (to me).

Which pedigrees are these?

 

I believe Diamond Run was removed from ped status because a significant portion were not OO copies. Resto played a part as well. Maybe a big part/

 

I understood it was because it was a warehouse find.

[TheWatcher]

if you're putting together this pedigree during the era of comic collecting, it sounds like a collection to me

 

Was the late 50s/early 60s the era of comic collecting? I'm under the impression that it wasn't. I wasn't alive then, but that was long before Overstreet even started printing a guide or we were commonly using the coin "mint" terms to describe condition.

 

That era actually marks the beginning of the hobby. It started with ECs and Legion of Superheroes in the1950s and then moved on Marvels in the 1960s. It really started to bloom in the mid 1960s, which is why books become so plentiful at that point.

 

 

It was only a handful of guys at that point though, right, maybe a few hundred who went to the handful of conventions out there? Guys like Overstreet were buying Stan Lee's Marvels for profit potential, but comics as anything valuable was completely off the radar for the general public which is why early 60s books are still so hard to find. It's the rarity of those books in grade due to the very low number of grade hoarders that elicits the pedigree designation from CGC.

This book was recently released and it covers the history of comic fandom/collecting and the people involved

 

[fantastic_four]

I believe Diamond Run was removed from ped status because a significant portion were not OO copies. Resto played a part as well. Maybe a big part/

 

I understood it was because it was a warehouse find.

 

I don't remember the resto part either, do you recall where you heard that or which books were restored Jeff?

[VintageComics]

I believe Diamond Run was removed from ped status because a significant portion were not OO copies. Resto played a part as well. Maybe a big part/

 

I understood it was because it was a warehouse find.

 

I don't remember the resto part either, do you recall where you heard that or which books were restored Jeff?

 

I spoke to the owner of the Diamond Run when I bought a book from him (or at least the guy who brought it to market) and he told me that it was because CGC didn't believe that the collection was entirely OO...or something along those lines.

 

The Pep #22 that I bought is from the Diamond Run with cert and all, so there was a run of books from the Golden Age and well into the Silver Age. The collection was vast.

[DrWatson]

To repeat what we've said dozens of times already, the most likely reason CGC doesn't deduct much for dust shadows is that they're safely removable.

Really? I didn't know that? Must have been how it got bumped to a 9.6 then.

[Mark 1]

So, have we determined that this is NOT a new pedigree but rather a collection (like Joe and Nadia, Nick Cage, etc)?

[VintageComics]

If it's being labeled I'm going to lean towards Ped. I don't think CGC labels collections on the right side of the label like that...or at least not anymore.

 

R.

 

 

[Jeffro.]

So, have we determined that this is NOT a new pedigree but rather a collection (like Joe and Nadia, Nick Cage, etc)?

 

Going by the images posted in this thread, CGC is noting it on the label just like other known peds.

[fantastic_four]

So, have we determined that this is NOT a new pedigree but rather a collection (like Joe and Nadia, Nick Cage, etc)?

 

CGC considers it a pedigree, not a collection. We're still not sure why because we've only seen a handful of books from it.

[VintageComics]

So, have we determined that this is NOT a new pedigree but rather a collection (like Joe and Nadia, Nick Cage, etc)?

 

Going by the images posted in this thread, CGC is noting it on the label just like other known peds.

 

Just talked to CGC. They toss around the word collection when talking about the Church, Green River, etc collections because that is in fact what they are but the Suscha News Ped. is officially recognized as such by CGC.

 

I didn't ask for any more details about the collection but Vincent told me it was pretty amazing when compared to the Oaklands.

[Jeffro.]

I believe Diamond Run was removed from ped status because a significant portion were not OO copies. Resto played a part as well. Maybe a big part/

 

I understood it was because it was a warehouse find.

 

I don't remember the resto part either, do you recall where you heard that or which books were restored Jeff?

 

Specific books? Don't know.

 

Here's the thread I was looking for. Check Borock's post on the last page

[Mark 1]

So, have we determined that this is NOT a new pedigree but rather a collection (like Joe and Nadia, Nick Cage, etc)?

 

Going by the images posted in this thread, CGC is noting it on the label just like other known peds.

 

Just talked to CGC. They toss around the word collection when talking about the Church, Green River, etc collections because that is in fact what they are but the Suscha News Ped. is officially recognized as such by CGC.

 

I didn't ask for any more details about the collection but Vincent told me it was pretty amazing when compared to the Oaklands.

 

Thanks for the clarification. (thumbs u

[fantastic_four]

Specific books? Don't know.

 

Here's the thread I was looking for. Check Borock's post on the last page

 

Thanks for the link, I missed that thread entirely! (thumbs u

 

Did anyone ever figure out why they called that one "Diamond Run"? I always wonder if the name somehow comes from Geppi's company that distributes almost all comics, Diamond Comics Distribution.

[Jeffro.]

Don't know where the Diamond Run appelation came from.

 

This collection was owned by Tom Fagan. His connection to comic books was the whole Rutland Vermont Halloween thing.

[Mr. Zipper]

To repeat what we've said dozens of times already, the most likely reason CGC doesn't deduct much for dust shadows is that they're safely removable.

Really? I didn't know that? Must have been how it got bumped to a 9.6 then.

 

This is news to me as well. I follow this type of stuff pretty closely and cannot recall hearing this rationale regarding the grading of dust shadows.

 

First, dust shadows are not always removable. The dust can become embedded over time and impossible to remove without washing.

 

But even if they were always removable, following this train of logic, then CGC shouldn't deduct for a whole host of other flaws that are removable -- water wrinkling without staining, non-color breaking bends, slight rust on staples, etc etc. It makes no sense.

 

 

[DrWatson]

To repeat what we've said dozens of times already, the most likely reason CGC doesn't deduct much for dust shadows is that they're safely removable.

Really? I didn't know that? Must have been how it got bumped to a 9.6 then.

 

This is news to me as well. I follow this type of stuff pretty closely and cannot recall hearing this rationale regarding the grading of dust shadows.

 

First, dust shadows are not always removable. The dust can become embedded over time and impossible to remove without washing.

 

But even if they were always removable, following this train of logic, then CGC shouldn't deduct for a whole host of other flaws that are removable -- water wrinkling without staining, non-color breaking bends, slight rust on staples, etc etc. It makes no sense.

Thank you for confirming I not any more crazy than what I originally thought, Steve. I checked with another board member and received the same response as what you posted.

[fantastic_four]

First, dust shadows are not always removable. The dust can become embedded over time and impossible to remove without washing.

 

It has been a while since we discussed the specifics, and it's quoting--or possibly misquoting--someone else as I haven't seen verification of it apart from these boards, but my recollection is that washing is the main way you remove it, that dry erasure doesn't do it, but cover removal isn't necessary, that you can spot-wash it and that the result is undetectable, I need to search to recall more or who's said that. I completely agree about CGC not deducting enough for it even if it is removable, it makes no sense to me either, but neither does giving a 9.6 to a book with a long, black dirt stripe down the back cover spine when that can be wonderbreaded off.

[blazingbob]

A pedigree collection should be original owner and CGC should be presented with a Master list to verify when books are graded. Without a list the "conspiracy" theory starts that books are being added. And frankly regardless of the submitter I would insist on a Master list.

 

I was working for Vincent at the time and was one of the original graders of the Oaklands. Both Mike and Vinny went to buy the collection, the three of us sat around and graded it. It was a very very nice post 66 collection of books.

 

Pre CGC a pedigree was bestowed by the dealer who found the collection. My opinion is that until CGC came around there were a lot more "Named collections" than pedigrees. Doug named most of the books he bought. Smokey closet, back seat collection. He came up with some of the best names in order to hype, I mean sell a book.

 

The Diamond Run lost it's pedigree status because the owner did not provide CGC with a master list. When Golden Age Detectives came back restored Mark Haspel pulled the Pedigree status unless the owner provided a Master list. Even though thousands had already been graded by CGC. The current seller of the Diamond run states that every Golden Age pedigree could have books not purchased by the original owner. That god forbid kids actually traded books. The Detectives were traded to Tom Fagan. Since Tom sadly passed away it's pretty hard to confirm original owner versus "traded for" Diamond Runs.

 

The Overstreet collection (Golden Age as well as Silver Age) was basically a "Assembled" Collection. At that time Steve Borock wasn't whoring out the CGC label (Milehighcomics.com) for collection notations. To me assembled collections should not be pedigrees. I still agree with Joe Vernault who wrote a very early article in CBM that there should not be a lot of Silver Age pedigrees.

 

 

[rob_react]

if you're putting together this pedigree during the era of comic collecting, it sounds like a collection to me

 

Was the late 50s/early 60s the era of comic collecting? I'm under the impression that it wasn't. I wasn't alive then, but that was long before Overstreet even started printing a guide or we were commonly using the coin "mint" terms to describe condition.

 

That era actually marks the beginning of the hobby. It started with ECs and Legion of Superheroes in the1950s and then moved on Marvels in the 1960s. It really started to bloom in the mid 1960s, which is why books become so plentiful at that point.

 

To me, the "era of comic collecting" is from 1965 onwards.

 

Yeah, all that earlier stuff was smaller and was just building towards the mid to late 60s where things really blew up.