• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Chuck explains his Mile High pricing

Started by Sekowskyfan10,

906 posts in this topic

shadroch

shadroch

Posted
Posted
Also, something in addition to what has already been said. The idea of going back to the heirs and give them more money would have been very risky and I would not have done it. The first thing the heirs would have done is to ask for more information:

 

"why are you giving us more money? what were the comics worth? did you sell them? for how much?"

 

And they would have brought suit right after, asking the judge to annul the contract on an unconscionability claim, asking for more money, etc. As you say, Chuck may be greedy, but I am sure the heirs would have been greedy as well.

 

As soon as someone smells money, crazy things happen.

 

 

The books were not theirs to sell. They would have no grounds to sue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ttfitz

ttfitz

Posted
Posted
Also, something in addition to what has already been said. The idea of going back to the heirs and give them more money would have been very risky and I would not have done it. The first thing the heirs would have done is to ask for more information:

 

"why are you giving us more money? what were the comics worth? did you sell them? for how much?"

 

And they would have brought suit right after, asking the judge to annul the contract on an unconscionability claim, asking for more money, etc. As you say, Chuck may be greedy, but I am sure the heirs would have been greedy as well.

 

As soon as someone smells money, crazy things happen.

 

 

The books were not theirs to sell. They would have no grounds to sue.

 

And yet they apparently did. Or the daughter, anyway. Appears she lost, though I haven't been able to locate any details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
That Ron Dude

That Ron Dude

Posted
Posted

On the one hand he was only twenty, no one knew if the hobby would go up or down, he had to borrow the money for the purchase and he had to go into rural Colorado in a van when no one else really wanted to.

 

On the other hand the Churches wouldn't have done much worse if he had stolen the comics.

 

Perhaps he could have created a scholarship fund in their name giving the first scholarship to the children of the family. He could have paid much, much more for his purchases on succeeding trips.

 

He seems to write about everything in his business but not the morality of what he did. Does he sleep at night?

 

I remember an old Scrooge comic where Scrooge is ready to buy a valley of golden feathers for $2 but Huey, Dewey and Louie make him pay a million dollars. Chuck McRozanski.

 

I don't know what went on in the Church house and if there was anything illegal no one is talking about it. But what Chuck Rozanski does talk about is just the sort of thing that you don't want your children to know. It is a bad example for them.

 

"And then I visited this old lady. Her husband was in the hospital. I bought his comic collection worth over a hundred thousand even back then, for $1800."

 

"Gee whiz, Dad, you the man!"

 

Someone back a little ways in the thread suggested that to be anti-Chuck was tantamount to being anti-capitalist. I looked for the exact quote but sorry, I can't find it. Is there such a thing as excesses of capitalism? Can capitalism go too far? For that matter can there be excesses of free speech (maybe when Nazis march through Skokie)? How about excesses of freedom of religion when a cult leader takes the flock for every nickel they have? We can't always make laws against things we don't like but it is OK to not like things, even when they are legal.

 

For Shadrock, what if that $9,000 book was not worth $23,000 but $230,000? What if was worth $2,300,000? Does there come a point where people will say, "That may be legal but it was wrong". Are gutless shill and greedy pig the only options?

 

It is not as though I have the answers to my own questions, but I believe the Church deal to have been morally repugnant. I am not a comic dealer, big time or otherwise. I have been a humble unionized school teacher for the past 38 years. My union negotiates for me. But every time I benefit from a deal, I think of Chuck and the moral yardstick of that deal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oakman29

oakman29

Posted
Posted
On the one hand he was only twenty, no one knew if the hobby would go up or down, he had to borrow the money for the purchase and he had to go into rural Colorado in a van when no one else really wanted to.

 

On the other hand the Churches wouldn't have done much worse if he had stolen the comics.

 

Perhaps he could have created a scholarship fund in their name giving the first scholarship to the children of the family. He could have paid much, much more for his purchases on succeeding trips.

 

He seems to write about everything in his business but not the morality of what he did. Does he sleep at night?

 

I remember an old Scrooge comic where Scrooge is ready to buy a valley of golden feathers for $2 but Huey, Dewey and Louie make him pay a million dollars. Chuck McRozanski.

 

I don't know what went on in the Church house and if there was anything illegal no one is talking about it. But what Chuck Rozanski does talk about is just the sort of thing that you don't want your children to know. It is a bad example for them.

 

"And then I visited this old lady. Her husband was in the hospital. I bought his comic collection worth over a hundred thousand even back then, for $1800."

 

"Gee whiz, Dad, you the man!"

 

Someone back a little ways in the thread suggested that to be anti-Chuck was tantamount to being anti-capitalist. I looked for the exact quote but sorry, I can't find it. Is there such a thing as excesses of capitalism? Can capitalism go too far? For that matter can there be excesses of free speech (maybe when Nazis march through Skokie)? How about excesses of freedom of religion when a cult leader takes the flock for every nickel they have? We can't always make laws against things we don't like but it is OK to not like things, even when they are legal.

 

For Shadrock, what if that $9,000 book was not worth $23,000 but $230,000? What if was worth $2,300,000? Does there come a point where people will say, "That may be legal but it was wrong". Are gutless shill and greedy pig the only options?

 

It is not as though I have the answers to my own questions, but I believe the Church deal to have been morally repugnant. I am not a comic dealer, big time or otherwise. I have been a humble unionized school teacher for the past 38 years. My union negotiates for me. But every time I benefit from a deal, I think of Chuck and the moral yardstick of that deal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly! At the end of the day one has to live with their moral and ethical selves. Chuck built an empire with those books,just stumbling onto the holy grail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ComicConnoisseur

ComicConnoisseur

Posted
Posted

How come no one ever went back to track down those heirs to hear their side of the story?

It`s been almost 40 years since this deal went down, and all we hear is Chuck`s side of it.

I wonder if the heirs are deceased? hm

 

Maybe that`s the reason?

When Edgar Church passed on he was about 90 according to Wikipedia.

This was 1977 or 78,so most people who are 90 usually have children that are in the 50 to 70 years range. If we factor in that the collection was sold about 40 years ago and add that to the age Edgar`s children would be in 1977,then they would be about 90 to 110 years old today! :o

 

So Edgar Church`s children(heirs) are probably long gone now to dispute what Chuck`s side of the story is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shadroch

shadroch

Posted
Posted
How come no one ever went back to track down those heirs to hear their side of the story?

It`s been almost 40 years since this deal went down, and all we hear is Chuck`s side of it.

I wonder if the heirs are deceased? hm

 

Maybe that`s the reason?

When Edgar Church passed on he was about 90 according to Wikipedia.

This was 1977 or 78,so most people who are 90 usually have children that are in the 50 to 70 years range. If we factor in that the collection was sold about 40 years ago and add that to the age Edgar`s children would be in 1977,then they would be about 90 to 110 years old today! :o

 

So Edgar Church`s children(heirs) are probably long gone now to dispute what Chuck side of the story is.

 

Why were 50 to 70 year olds living with their father?

Why would adult children care so little for their fathers lifelong passion that they couldn't wait until he died to get rid of his stuff?

Were they really in a rush to sell the house before their Mexican neighbors drove down the property values?

What happened in the civil case everyone alludes to, but no record seems to exist for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ComicConnoisseur

ComicConnoisseur

Posted
Posted
How come no one ever went back to track down those heirs to hear their side of the story?

It`s been almost 40 years since this deal went down, and all we hear is Chuck`s side of it.

I wonder if the heirs are deceased? hm

 

Maybe that`s the reason?

When Edgar Church passed on he was about 90 according to Wikipedia.

This was 1977 or 78,so most people who are 90 usually have children that are in the 50 to 70 years range. If we factor in that the collection was sold about 40 years ago and add that to the age Edgar`s children would be in 1977,then they would be about 90 to 110 years old today! :o

 

So Edgar Church`s children(heirs) are probably long gone now to dispute what Chuck side of the story is.

 

Why were 50 to 70 year olds living with their father?

Why would adult children care so little for their fathers lifelong passion that they couldn't wait until he died to get rid of his stuff?

Were they really in a rush to sell the house before their Mexican neighbors drove down the property values?

What happened in the civil case everyone alludes to, but no record seems to exist for.

I like to know those answers as well.

You would think after 40 years there would be at least one interview with the heirs.

Somewhere out there the heirs must have documented or said something.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ComicConnoisseur

ComicConnoisseur

Posted
Posted
Unless I'm not reading this correctly, it appears some members tried to actually contact the heirs.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4141316&fpart=1

 

Thanks for the link.

It seems easier to get a Steve Ditko autograph, than to find out information about what these heirs felt about this historic collection. :o

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
botolo

botolo

Posted
Posted

The books were not theirs to sell. They would have no grounds to sue.

 

Given that Church had Alzheimer at that time, and that the heirs were going to sell his house, I assume they had a conservator appointed and, therefore, they were entitled to sell anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shadroch

shadroch

Posted
Posted

The books were not theirs to sell. They would have no grounds to sue.

 

Given that Church had Alzheimer at that time, and that the heirs were going to sell his house, I assume they had a conservator appointed and, therefore, they were entitled to sell anything.

 

I seriously doubt that. In 1977, things like that were not common, especially among lower middle class folk. Alzheimer's was not commonly known. The Alzhiemers Association wasn't even around until about 1980. According to Chuck, they misled him into thinking Mr Church had already died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted

 

Wow, just wow. I take back everything I said about this deal being underhanded and immoral. He got over 18,000 near mint golden age comics for dirt cheap and his way of repaying the heirs was to pay 2x the value on a couple dozen posters. Wow, what a guy!! Just a class act all the way around. I'm legitimately inspired by this act of kindness of selflessness.

 

You, and many others, look at this deal through 21st century-tinted glasses.

 

The comics world in 1977 was nothing...absolutely nothing...like what it would become.

 

Yes, he got an amazing deal. No one, not even Chuck, has denied that. However...he paid the heirs far, far more than they expected, or would have reasonably deserved, considering they were planning on, and in the process of, throwing it away.

 

"But Action Comics #1 was a $5,000-$7,500 book at this time!" Yeah, so?

 

How many Action Comics #1s were in the collection?

 

1.

 

What about Action Comics #108? Green Lama #7? Tarzan #31? Plastic Man #31?

 

YES, it was an incredible deal, and YES, Chuck made his money back and moreso...but you folks have GOT to remember that in 1977, comics collecting was so niche, you could probably number the collectors (as opposed to readers or accumulators) to still less than 1,000 or so nationwide. Certainly not too much more than that. This was a time when people still THREW AWAY comic books, which these heirs were in the process of doing themselves.

 

That they got whatever it was that Chuck eventually paid is far more than they had a right to expect.

 

So, what happens if you have a lot of people who WANT to buy these, but don't have the money? That was a real concern, as Chuck himself explained, in those early days. Desire didn't come up with the cash, and buyers with money were few and far between. Yes, there were willing buyers...but willing buyers with the cash on hand? What are we down to in 1977, 100 people nationwide for the major keys?

 

It's not like throwing it up on eBay at 99 cents and letting it fly was an option.

 

It's so easy to apply hindsight to this collection....but in 1977? How was Chuck to know what would happen?

 

Look at OPGs from the 70's and 80's....the phrase "Prices vary widely on this book" were printed all over the place...because it was TRUE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
I just finished reading the final pages of the Church collection from Chuck and I am was just blown away when I came across this part:

 

"Another question I am frequently asked, is whether I have had any further contact with the Church heirs. My last visit to Edgar Church's house was in late April of 1977, three months after the comics deal was concluded. Despite their earlier haste, the Church heirs had not succeeded in selling the house by that time, and kept calling me with more collectibles to buy. In total, I believe I made six, or seven, additional trips to the house. During the last trip, I purchased a few dozen posters they had found in the attic. To help (in a small way) compensate them for the incredible bargain I received in buying the comics, I paid them about double for the posters what I would have paid anyone else."

 

Wow, just wow. I take back everything I said about this deal being underhanded and immoral. He got over 18,000 near mint golden age comics for dirt cheap and his way of repaying the heirs was to pay 2x the value on a couple dozen posters. Wow, what a guy!! Just a class act all the way around. I'm legitimately inspired by this act of kindness of selflessness.

 

I may have read the account years ago so I don't remember the details - do I remember correctly that the books would have ended up in the trash if Chuck hadn't shown up to look at them?

 

Did the family set a price or did Chuck make an offer?

 

Has anyone ever documented what the collection would have been worth at the time that Chuck purchased the collection?

 

If so, what would have been a 'fair' price to pay for the collection?

 

A "fair" price to pay for the collection was probably about $5-$10,000, total. Adding up the prices in the 1977 OPG would be (I'm mostly guessing, but I'm probably not too far off) around $50-$100k.

 

It was a tremendous risk, and the good came with a lot of drek that no one (at the time) wanted.

 

Had I been Chuck, and in his position, I probably would have not taken out the line of credit, asked for the books for free or a token amount I could have afforded, and then compensated the Church family after the fact.

 

Had the Church heirs known they were "worth money" (even 1977 money), they probably would have mucked everything up.

 

These people were throwing these books away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
I just finished reading the final pages of the Church collection from Chuck and I am was just blown away when I came across this part:

 

"Another question I am frequently asked, is whether I have had any further contact with the Church heirs. My last visit to Edgar Church's house was in late April of 1977, three months after the comics deal was concluded. Despite their earlier haste, the Church heirs had not succeeded in selling the house by that time, and kept calling me with more collectibles to buy. In total, I believe I made six, or seven, additional trips to the house. During the last trip, I purchased a few dozen posters they had found in the attic. To help (in a small way) compensate them for the incredible bargain I received in buying the comics, I paid them about double for the posters what I would have paid anyone else."

 

Wow, just wow. I take back everything I said about this deal being underhanded and immoral. He got over 18,000 near mint golden age comics for dirt cheap and his way of repaying the heirs was to pay 2x the value on a couple dozen posters. Wow, what a guy!! Just a class act all the way around. I'm legitimately inspired by this act of kindness of selflessness.

 

 

 

I may have read the account years ago so I don't remember the details - do I remember correctly that the books would have ended up in the trash if Chuck hadn't shown up to look at them?

 

Did the family set a price or did Chuck make an offer?

 

Has anyone ever documented what the collection would have been worth at the time that Chuck purchased the collection?

 

If so, what would have been a 'fair' price to pay for the collection?

 

I haven t done the math, (tho I think someone once posted a total value ?) but jeeez, he bought them at cover price -- ten cents a piece! Even at $2 a piece the total would have been 20x what he paid! 40 grand was pretty close to what the house must have sold for back then.

 

and regardless of whether the heirs just wanted the comics gone from the house. Chuck knew he was ripping them off. He could have made a decent pile of dough and STILL have cut them a much better deal.

 

 

Not if he didn't have the money in the first place.

 

$2,000 (or whatever it was) might as well have been $2 trillion if one didn't have it.

 

Ripping them off...?

 

$2 each? When new comics were 30 cents? Really? And you think Chuck had, or could have possibly gotten, $36,000 to buy this collection? Any bank would have laughed him out the door, down the street, and around the corner. And if he didn't have it all, do you think the Church heirs would have waited while he tried to secure that kind of money?

 

Madness.

 

The greatest collection ever discovered? No doubt. But neither the Church heirs NOR Chuck knew this...even if Chuck figured it out over time. The only reasonable option that Chuck could have had was to pay those people after the fact...and these people didn't seem all that interested.

 

Sigh.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
I just read Chuck's big article on the Church find and I am absolutely in shock. I have never held a high opinion of Chuck, but after reading that article....well, he has definitely sunken to a new low in my book. Sure, they agreed on a price per bushel of comics so legally, Chuck did absolutely nothing wrong, but once he realized the true value of those comics, he should have notified the sellers that the collection was a lot more valuable than either of them had anticipated. that would have been the honest thing to do. the sellers, regardless of what Chuck thought about them, should have received more money for that collection. Instead he loaded up his van as fast as humanly possible and sped away.

 

I understand the sellers just wanted the comics out of the house, but clearly they had absolutely no understanding of the value that many of those comics had. Some people on here may disagree, but I believe he had an obligation to notify those people that those comics were extremely valuable. I find the entire thing utterly distasteful. All Chuck cared about was Chuck and getting those comics out of there as fast as humanly possible. It was a scumbag move if I have ever seen one. that to me shows the kind of person Chuck really is.

 

You've brought this comparison up before - it was incorrect then and still is now.

 

Blockbuster got destroyed by Netflix because they both offered the exact same product - the rental of physical DVDs. The service that was the most convenient for the consumer - eg. the one that didn't require you to get dressed, walk to your car, drive to a store & hope they had what you wanted to watch in stock - won out.

 

Digital comics are not the same thing as regular paper comics - it's absolutely nuts to think that the TPB market will be dead within the next 5-10 years.

 

Your leaving out one of the key components to the demise of Blockbuster, that being the late fee's. Blockbuster raped people with late fee's, which left people pissed off 99% of the time. off your customers is not a good long term business strategy. In 2000 alone, Blockbuster collected nearly $800 million in late fees, accounting for 16 percent of its total revenue. this combined with Netflix's monthly subscription plans which allowed people to keep several DVDs at a time without incurring late fees equalled the end of Blockbuster.

 

No.

 

No, no, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing