San Francisco Pedigree?

[esquirecomics]

That sounds like some interesting research that would be valuable in its own right, Mark, but I'm not sure that it's (a) necessary, or (b) dispositive on the issue of whether the book is a Reilly book or not. The fact that Reilly died in 1945 does not mean that his mom and dad didn't buy the odd book here and there after 1945 and toss it in the room along with the others. I'm not suggesting that this is what actually happened -- my point is that Reilly's death does not preclude a given book from being in his collection, since he wasn't the one buying the books anyway.

 

What IS dispositive in my mind is the fact that Bob Beerbohm is here saying "I was one of the people who found the collection, I remember the date range of the books, and there was nothing from 1946 in the collection." To me, that is far more conclusive than pinning down the date of Tom Reilly's death.

 

But like I said initially, there may be inherent value (having nothing to do with this particular book) in doing this research you mention. Any additional information about Tom Reilly would be a positive thing for people who care about the backstory on the collection. And while you're having your friends in the Beltway do research on Tom Reilly, maybe they could help me track down an ebay seller who ripped me off and then disappeared?

 

Frankly, I agree with everything you state. Even if I do confirm that he died in the Summer of 1945, this may not conclusively prove there are no post-death books. However, while I rule nothing out when it comes to the parameters of grief, I would personally find it unreasonable to believe - absent some form of other evidence (i.e., recollections of family or friends) that his parents would continue to buy books for him more than a year after his apparent death.

 

Bob's comments should, of course, be given significant weight, especially given his historical role. I would find it additionally helpful to receive the recollections of any of the other dealers/collectors who were involved in the early days of finding/disposing of the original collection.

 

Sometimes it is necessary to dispose of alternative theories in order to prove the underlying assertion so as to separate the wheat from the chafe, or however that goes.

 

As for the e-bay seller, PM me the details and I can give you some thoughts. I had one fraud prosecuted a few years ago for trying to sell me high-grade comics he did not have.

 

Mark

Esquirecomics.com

[Aman619]

Mark, the exact day Reilly died is sort of academic in this discussion since Bob B is right here stating that that book just was NOT in the collection he bought. Regardless of when Reilly died, Bob himself knows exactly which books he bought, and it wasnt in there. So rest assured, you are correct.

[nochips]

That sounds like some interesting research that would be valuable in its own right, Mark, but I'm not sure that it's (a) necessary, or (b) dispositive on the issue of whether the book is a Reilly book or not. The fact that Reilly died in 1945 does not mean that his mom and dad didn't buy the odd book here and there after 1945 and toss it in the room along with the others. I'm not suggesting that this is what actually happened -- my point is that Reilly's death does not preclude a given book from being in his collection, since he wasn't the one buying the books anyway.

 

What IS dispositive in my mind is the fact that Bob Beerbohm is here saying "I was one of the people who found the collection, I remember the date range of the books, and there was nothing from 1946 in the collection." To me, that is far more conclusive than pinning down the date of Tom Reilly's death.

 

But like I said initially, there may be inherent value (having nothing to do with this particular book) in doing this research you mention. Any additional information about Tom Reilly would be a positive thing for people who care about the backstory on the collection. And while you're having your friends in the Beltway do research on Tom Reilly, maybe they could help me track down an ebay seller who ripped me off and then disappeared?

 

Frankly, I agree with everything you state. Even if I do confirm that he died in the Summer of 1945, this may not conclusively prove there are no post-death books. However, while I rule nothing out when it comes to the parameters of grief, I would personally find it unreasonable to believe - absent some form of other evidence (i.e., recollections of family or friends) that his parents would continue to buy books for him more than a year after his apparent death.

 

Bob's comments should, of course, be given significant weight, especially given his historical role. I would find it additionally helpful to receive the recollections of any of the other dealers/collectors who were involved in the early days of finding/disposing of the original collection.

 

Sometimes it is necessary to dispose of alternative theories in order to prove the underlying assertion so as to separate the wheat from the chafe, or however that goes.

 

As for the e-bay seller, PM me the details and I can give you some thoughts. I had one fraud prosecuted a few years ago for trying to sell me high-grade comics he did not have.

 

Mark

Esquirecomics.com

 

 

 

I am sure this will all work out fine. Everyone is trying to do the right thing. Let CGC and Heritage sort it out. If you have any troubles buying pedigrees avoid them and buy non pedigree books. That way I can buy the pedigrees for less money.Yep, avoid them all. They are bad, very, very bad books indeed.

[esquirecomics]

Mark, the exact day Reilly died is sort of academic in this discussion since Bob B is right here stating that that book just was NOT in the collection he bought. Regardless of when Reilly died, Bob himself knows exactly which books he bought, and it wasnt in there. So rest assured, you are correct.

 

I certainly understand that, but as I said before sometimes you need to affirmatively shoot down "alternative" theories in order to bolster the truth, even though the truth may seem clear as day. With no disparagement towards Bob intended, others who claim to be extremely knowledgable of the Reilly pedigree have suggested, if not asserted, that the death story is not entirely accurate in order to explain away the 1946 books.

 

Ten years ago I led the legal battle to exhume the "alleged" remains of John Wilkes Booth, the assassin of President Lincoln. Many people believe that JWB was not killed on April 26, 1865 (for a variety of reasons) as claimed by the govt. Few, if any, of the "experts" on the assassination believed this "alternative" theory. Our intent was to answer the question conclusively so that the matter could be put to rest once and for all, just as it was for the exhumation of Lee Harvey Oswald, President Kennedy's assassin, which occurred in 1981. Few took the theory that LHO was not in his grave seriously, but it took the exhumation to completely push this "alternative'" aside.

 

Who knows, as part of my research, I may locate Reilly's family, friends or neighbors and they could possibly put this matter to rest once and for all.

 

Mark

[FFB]

Mark, the exact day Reilly died is sort of academic in this discussion since Bob B is right here stating that that book just was NOT in the collection he bought. Regardless of when Reilly died, Bob himself knows exactly which books he bought, and it wasnt in there. So rest assured, you are correct.

 

I certainly understand that, but as I said before sometimes you need to affirmatively shoot down "alternative" theories in order to bolster the truth, even though the truth may seem clear as day. With no disparagement towards Bob intended, others who claim to be extremely knowledgable of the Reilly pedigree have suggested, if not asserted, that the death story is not entirely accurate in order to explain away the 1946 books.

 

Ten years ago I led the legal battle to exhume the "alleged" remains of John Wilkes Booth, the assassin of President Lincoln. Many people believe that JWB was not killed on April 26, 1865 (for a variety of reasons) as claimed by the govt. Few, if any, of the "experts" on the assassination believed this "alternative" theory. Our intent was to answer the question conclusively so that the matter could be put to rest once and for all, just as it was for the exhumation of Lee Harvey Oswald, President Kennedy's assassin, which occurred in 1981. Few took the theory that LHO was not in his grave seriously, but it took the exhumation to completely push this "alternative'" aside.

 

Who knows, as part of my research, I may locate Reilly's family, friends or neighbors and they could possibly put this matter to rest once and for all.

 

Mark

 

So once you got the order to dig them up, were they there?

[Red Hook]

You know, I'd rather discuss the market value of Hulk 181's. The material in this thread just doesn't come close to being as interesting.

 

 

 

And yes, I am joking. FASCINATING material!

 

Red

[Foolkiller]

This is a great thread. The information here is fascinating, and Mark, please let us know what your research turns up (even though it may not be dispositive, it would still be interesting). The boards may not always have great information, but threads like this, the Church Action #1 thread, and the Larson thread are just terrific reading that keeps me enthralled with the history of comics!

[BLBcomics-migration]

Mark, the exact day Reilly died is sort of academic in this discussion since Bob B is right here stating that that book just was NOT in the collection he bought. Regardless of when Reilly died, Bob himself knows exactly which books he bought, and it wasnt in there. So rest assured, you are correct.

 

I certainly understand that, but as I said before sometimes you need to affirmatively shoot down "alternative" theories in order to bolster the truth, even though the truth may seem clear as day. With no disparagement towards Bob intended, others who claim to be extremely knowledgable of the Reilly pedigree have suggested, if not asserted, that the death story is not entirely accurate in order to explain away the 1946 books.

 

Who knows, as part of my research, I may locate Reilly's family, friends or neighbors and they could possibly put this matter to rest once and for all.

 

Mark

 

 

Over on your new Reilly family tree thread, i listed the initial 1973 players in this passion play.

 

Two are dead and two only got the Timelys out of the first batch and had nothing further to do with the Reilly heirs

 

- nor did Belmont following the split of the first batch. He talked a bit with Mr Arnheim that Sunday afternoon when the books first showed up

 

I surely would like to know who these other "experts" are

 

- because i have never remembered on any level any books from 1946, nor does the listing i made up to demonstrate "predigree" soon after Chuck unleashed Edgar Church's collection.

 

- keep in mind that was 5 or so years after we were blessed with being initial buyers from Mr Arnheim (i may have the spelling incorrect - this is phonetic), the doctor who first brought us books at the Berkeleycon Easter 1973.

 

One doesn't soon forget a collection that contained what amounted to damn near everything between two sign post dates. Now it is 30 years later.

 

What does Perry mason say?

 

"Where were you on the night of......?" -

 

best

 

robert beerbohm

 

- .

[1962]

This is an excellent thread. It is threads like this that make it worthwhile to visit the forum.

[esquirecomics]

So once you got the order to dig them up, were they there?

 

Sad to say we were denied permission to exhume. Even though I had every identifiable living family member sign off on it, promised to indemnify the cemetery for any damage, had the Smithsonian, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology AND the Maryland State Medical Examiner's Office all in favor and willing participants, the cemetery opposed the effort and the Court did not grant permission. Thus, the question continues for future generations!

 

Mark

[fantastic_four]

the cemetery opposed the effort and the Court did not grant permission.

 

I'm surprised that the owners of the land can deny exhumation of the bodies buried in it. That almost implies they have some measure of ownership of those bodies once they're buried there.

[esquirecomics]

the cemetery opposed the effort and the Court did not grant permission.

 

I'm surprised that the owners of the land can deny exhumation of the bodies buried in it. That almost implies they have some measure of ownership of those bodies once they're buried there.

 

The law surrounding exhumations - for those truly interested - varies across the U.S. In one state the local coronor can simply approve the exhumation, in another you have to jump through hoops. If anyone is interested in tidbits about this or the Booth case, just PM me so we don't take important comic book GA discussion space up!

 

Mark

[esquirecomics]

 

As this is not the only "pedigree" book for which the designation has been challenged, it is my personal opinion that this controversy is serious enough to deserve public comment from CGC to explain the evidentiary basis it uses for designating pedigrees. It is my hope that Steve B., or the appropriate person, will address, at a minimum, these several questions.

 

* What type of documentary evidence is useful/necessary standing alone to justify a designation?

 

* To what extent is a demonstrated chain of possession utilized for the decision?

 

* Is an oral statement alone ever sufficient, or would a submitter always need to secure additional documentation setting forth the different transactions?

 

* If little or no documentation exists, to what degree would a visual inspection alone be sufficient to permit a pedigree designation?

 

* What level of independent investigation does CGC undertake to verify submitted evidence?

 

* Does CGC permanently maintain copies of any submitted evidence, as well as its stated reasoning for declaring a book to be a pedigree?

 

Steve B. called me today to discuss the above questions and my concerns. CGC does, as I would expect, of course have standards that are applied to a determination regarding pedigree designations. To simply sum up the conversation, verbal proffers are insufficient. There must be either documentation and/or physical characteristic evidence that supports the claim. Typically, either the grader's notes will list the evidence submitted or copies of documentation will be maintained.

 

Hopefully, and I have no real doubt this is the case, pedigree designation errors are the exception rather than the norm. Nevertheless, collectors and dealers alike must remain vigilant concerning this important issue and continue to raise questions and challenges where appropriate.

 

Mark

Esquirecomics.com

[PedigreeMan]

 

As this is not the only "pedigree" book for which the designation has been challenged, it is my personal opinion that this controversy is serious enough to deserve public comment from CGC to explain the evidentiary basis it uses for designating pedigrees. It is my hope that Steve B., or the appropriate person, will address, at a minimum, these several questions.

 

* What type of documentary evidence is useful/necessary standing alone to justify a designation?

 

* To what extent is a demonstrated chain of possession utilized for the decision?

 

* Is an oral statement alone ever sufficient, or would a submitter always need to secure additional documentation setting forth the different transactions?

 

* If little or no documentation exists, to what degree would a visual inspection alone be sufficient to permit a pedigree designation?

 

* What level of independent investigation does CGC undertake to verify submitted evidence?

 

* Does CGC permanently maintain copies of any submitted evidence, as well as its stated reasoning for declaring a book to be a pedigree?

 

Steve B. called me today to discuss the above questions and my concerns. CGC does, as I would expect, of course have standards that are applied to a determination regarding pedigree designations. To simply sum up the conversation, verbal proffers are insufficient. There must be either documentation and/or physical characteristic evidence that supports the claim. Typically, either the grader's notes will list the evidence submitted or copies of documentation will be maintained.

 

Hopefully, and I have no real doubt this is the case, pedigree designation errors are the exception rather than the norm. Nevertheless, collectors and dealers alike must remain vigilant concerning this important issue and continue to raise questions and challenges where appropriate.

 

Mark

Esquirecomics.com

 

I'm still hoping that CGC can answer the following question:

 

* What level of independent investigation does CGC undertake to verify submitted evidence?

 

Basically, I would like to know when CGC deems it appropriate to contact a "pedigree expert" whenever gross inconsistencies -- like a book falling outside of accepted date ranges -- arises. Do they even have a list of outside experts that they will contact with regard to pedigrees, or is everything in this area done in-house?

 

I will agree with Mark that errors in pedigree designations by CGC fall overwhelmingly into the "exeception" pile rather than the "rule" pile. However, it does worry me greatly that a novice like myself could raise such a controversy by taking a simple five minutes to send an email to Bob Beerbohm.

 

Alan

[esquirecomics]

I'm still hoping that CGC can answer the following question:

 

* What level of independent investigation does CGC undertake to verify submitted evidence?

 

Basically, I would like to know when CGC deems it appropriate to contact a "pedigree expert" whenever gross inconsistencies -- like a book falling outside of accepted date ranges -- arises. Do they even have a list of outside experts that they will contact with regard to pedigrees, or is everything in this area done in-house?

 

I will agree with Mark that errors in pedigree designations by CGC fall overwhelmingly into the "exeception" pile rather than the "rule" pile. However, it does worry me greatly that a novice like myself could raise such a controversy by taking a simple five minutes to send an email to Bob Beerbohm.

 

Alan

 

According to Steve, and I am not attempting to speak for him or on his behalf but merely respond based on my knowledge, CGC routinely contacts "experts" (not sure the term is entirely appropriate as the phone calls CGC will make will - as I am told - include attempts to identify the chain of possession of the book which one does not need to be an expert in to comment) to assist in the identification of a pedigree.

 

I still, frankly, remain at a loss as to how the Sensation #54 or any book post-Summer 1945 could be accurately designated a Reilly pedigree. Steve B. told me that research was done on this particular book (primarily checking chain of possession if I heard correctly), in addition to their physical analysis which supported the determination, if not primarily led to it.

 

Nevertheless, given that I am not aware of anyone OTHER than Bob Beerbohm,

who has first-hand knowledge of the origination of the collection, publicly discussing what he recalls (and, yes, it is simply a recollection, it doesn't make the story accurate, he is relating what he was told), I don't believe any post-Summer 1945 book should be slabbed as a Reilly book. While others do not agree, nothing they have stated or written has constituted, in my opinion, anything but speculation.

 

In light of all that has transpired (thanks to Alan), I don't believe we will see any more post-Summer 1945 Reilly books slabbed by CGC from this date forward absent new evidence to support such a designation.

 

Mark

EsquireComics.com

[PedigreeMan]

I'm still hoping that CGC can answer the following question:

 

* What level of independent investigation does CGC undertake to verify submitted evidence?

 

Basically, I would like to know when CGC deems it appropriate to contact a "pedigree expert" whenever gross inconsistencies -- like a book falling outside of accepted date ranges -- arises. Do they even have a list of outside experts that they will contact with regard to pedigrees, or is everything in this area done in-house?

 

I will agree with Mark that errors in pedigree designations by CGC fall overwhelmingly into the "exeception" pile rather than the "rule" pile. However, it does worry me greatly that a novice like myself could raise such a controversy by taking a simple five minutes to send an email to Bob Beerbohm.

 

Alan

 

According to Steve, and I am not attempting to speak for him or on his behalf but merely respond based on my knowledge, CGC routinely contacts "experts" (not sure the term is entirely appropriate as the phone calls CGC will make will - as I am told - include attempts to identify the chain of possession of the book which one does not need to be an expert in to comment) to assist in the identification of a pedigree.

 

That's the thing, Mark: this doesn't sound like they're contacting an outside "expert" here. Rather, it sounds more like the standard provenance check that they have always said they perform.

 

I would like to know under what circumstances CGC would contact someone with no current attachment to a book, but who would still be able to provide meaningful answers to unusual questions that arise about said book. If they never contacted Bob about San Franciscos outside of accepted date ranges, or Gary Colabuano about non-first issue Windy City copies, or even Jon Berk about Larsons with no identifiable marks (other than a bit of foxing), what unusual traits would a book have to exhibit before they did contact such an individual? Again, I'm only talking about books where there are gross inconsistencies on accepted parameters. No one expects Beerbohm to be called about every book from the early '40s with a Tom Reilly stamp on the back cover and white pages ... just the ones from 1946 (or 1947, or 1948, or whatever )

 

Alan

[BLBcomics-migration]

 

I still, frankly, remain at a loss as to how the Sensation #54 or any book post-Summer 1945 could be accurately designated a Reilly pedigree. Steve B. told me that research was done on this particular book (primarily checking chain of possession if I heard correctly), in addition to their physical analysis which supported the determination, if not primarily led to it.

 

Nevertheless, given that I am not aware of anyone OTHER than Bob Beerbohm,

who has first-hand knowledge of the origination of the collection, publicly discussing what he recalls (and, yes, it is simply a recollection, it doesn't make the story accurate, he is relating what he was told), I don't believe any post-Summer 1945 book should be slabbed as a Reilly book. While others do not agree, nothing they have stated or written has constituted, in my opinion, anything but speculation.

 

In light of all that has transpired (thanks to Alan), I don't believe we will see any more post-Summer 1945 Reilly books slabbed by CGC from this date forward absent new evidence to support such a designation.

 

Mark

EsquireComics.com

 

I publicly ask any one who thinks they know more about provenence concepts Tom Reilly books than me to step up to the plate right now

 

- I got sucked into this brou-ha-ha because unknown nameless self-described "experts" claim behind closed doors they know more than me regarding this fabulous collection.

 

sounds to me like profit motive is one of the prime motives running this wagon

 

how do you spell b*llsh*t ???? so it comes thru without being censored?

 

The sealed up bedroom by his parents of Tom Reilly dying in 1945 is more than a mere recollection.

 

There were no comic books from 1946 onwards in the three batches of this collection i purchased on behalf of my firm Comics & Comix of which i was a co-partner with John Barrett and Bud Plant.

 

Scott Maple was an employee of the firm I hired at the time to work the Berkeleycon tables, and was hired after the show to work the Berkeley store. When we expanded to Sacramento later that summer using the cash flow this fantastic find brought us, he moved there and ran that portion of our operation on the K Street Mall

 

I called my long time friend yesterday where he presently works and put him in touch with Mark Zaid. He is confirming the facts presented in the Tom Reilly CGC GOLD threads i have been monitering since last week

 

Mr Arnheim (spelling may be wrong) was the doctor who sold us the first batch - he specifically told me Tom Reilly was killed out in the Pacific in the summer of 1945.

 

Maybe he did not die immediately from his wounds, maybe he died later in a hospital

 

- that detail part was not discussed as the business at hand was scoring the collection which took hours upon hours to grade and add up. I lived with these books and was the go-to guy in our C&C firm to buy any.

 

The concept of me learning this death story came up only because i pointedly commented to Mr Arnheim and asked why most of the books looked so fresh that they looked like they never had been read. It was more than a bit overwhelming to go thru each box as they were inventoried, graded and the net offers were made. It is a fact I have known since April-June 1973 that the collection stopped in the late middle of 1945 when all three batches were finally acquired.

 

I knew there were more books when we got the first batch. I knew there had to be more books when we got the 2nd batch. The heirs were pretty tight lipped there were other heirs with more books. Maybe there was ill blood between them, i do not know, one does not ask such private personal queries.

 

Pure and simple.

 

Period.

 

1946 is a simple impossibility

 

I brought up the conept of integrity on a previous post.

 

What is at stake here is not ncessarily CGC's integrity, but my own - regarding aspects of what i will ony refer to as The Tom Reilly Collection.

 

"They" say lightning only strikes once.

 

I pray to the Comics Ghods to strike me again

 

 

See some of you at Wondercon - i am leaving out for it later today. I have a lot of old friends in the Bay Area to catch up with. I had stores out there from 1972-1994, now a long time agon in a galaxy far far away

 

best

 

robert beerbohm

 

end of

 

 

Wondercon here i come