Larson puzzler- You be the Judge

[tth2]

I don't at all believe this was/is ever a Larson. But was someone intentionally putting an "L" on the books and then trying to market them as Larsons to those who just don't know better even though true Larsons never simply used such a symbol?

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of comic dealers?

[adamstrange]

I don't at all believe this was/is ever a Larson. But was someone intentionally putting an "L" on the books and then trying to market them as Larsons to those who just don't know better even though true Larsons never simply used such a symbol?

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of comic dealers?

 

I was trying to make the point in my post that, without any evidence of mis-representation or analysis of the ink, that the "L" was probably just a distributor mark. There have certainly been attempts at forging pedigrees, but not all were done by dealers.

[esquirecomics]

I don't at all believe this was/is ever a Larson. But was someone intentionally putting an "L" on the books and then trying to market them as Larsons to those who just don't know better even though true Larsons never simply used such a symbol?

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of comic dealers?

 

I was trying to make the point in my post that, without any evidence of mis-representation or analysis of the ink, that the "L" was probably just a distributor mark. There have certainly been attempts at forging pedigrees, but not all were done by dealers.

 

Yes, that's why I said "dealers/sellers". Obviously a seller need not be a dealer. And I agree about the distributor mark 100%. That is certainly a possibility. Just think back to the Reilly thread and the Sensation #56. Some took the position that simply b/c of the quality of the book and the "G" on it, that meant it was a San Fran-Reilly. No, that meant it came from the same distributor.

 

Still, I was curious about that "L". And I wanted to get this thread

[tth2]

I don't at all believe this was/is ever a Larson. But was someone intentionally putting an "L" on the books and then trying to market them as Larsons to those who just don't know better even though true Larsons never simply used such a symbol?

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of comic dealers?

 

I was trying to make the point in my post that, without any evidence of mis-representation or analysis of the ink, that the "L" was probably just a distributor mark. There have certainly been attempts at forging pedigrees, but not all were done by dealers.

 

I know, I was just trying to be provacative.

[adamstrange]

I don't at all believe this was/is ever a Larson. But was someone intentionally putting an "L" on the books and then trying to market them as Larsons to those who just don't know better even though true Larsons never simply used such a symbol?

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of comic dealers?

 

I was trying to make the point in my post that, without any evidence of mis-representation or analysis of the ink, that the "L" was probably just a distributor mark. There have certainly been attempts at forging pedigrees, but not all were done by dealers.

 

I know, I was just trying to be provacative.

 

Just like a lawyer, or should I say ... "devil's advocate".

[Forbush-Man]

Larson's rule.

[esquirecomics]

You all might remember that I supposedly purchased the Larson pedigree copy of

Blue Ribbon #1 CGC 8.5 from Heritage last year!

 

 

However, Jon Berk's expertise demonstrated that he actually owned the Larson copy of Blue Ribbon #1. That set in motion a lengthy, still ongoing, debate concerning the proof of provenance that CGC requires in order to establish a book is a true pedigree.

 

I am not sure if that discussion ever produced a satisfactory resolution, but I wanted to update everyone that I have stood by my word and had CGC remove the Larson pedigree designation from my copy. The scan below will shortly take the place of the previous one.

 

 

Anyone want to buy a previously designated Larson book?

[Silver Surfer]

Are you going to advertise it as "the book previously known as the Larson copy".

[esquirecomics]

Are you going to advertise it as "the book previously known as the Larson copy".

 

I may need to in order to recoup my purchase price!

[OldGuy]

Are you going to advertise it as "the book previously known as the Larson copy".

 

I may need to in order to recoup my purchase price!

 

CGC should make up the difference.

[Silver Surfer]

Are you going to advertise it as "the book previously known as the Larson copy".

 

I may need to in order to recoup my purchase price!

 

CGC should make up the difference.

 

[Larryw7]

Still a nice book, Larson or no Larson.

[The Black Hand ®]

This has been a very informative thread and I commend the two parties in the way that they handled themselves. I would love to see Esquire comics recoup his losses from cgc and whomever sold him the book. I also think CGC was a bit slow in dealing with this.

[esquirecomics]

I thought I would give this thread a little in order to raise once again the method by which CGC determines whether a book is a pedigree or not.

 

There is a brewing issue that may soon emerge, although with respect to SA books, and this topic remains a legitimate area for discussion.

[sfcityduck]

First time I read this thread. I am impressed by the conduct of the two-owners of the books in question.

 

Not so much by that of CGC. Mainly because CGC's focus was on keeping Zaid happy, not on correcting the problem. It appears the book in question was relabled only because Zaid resubmitted the book. Will all owners of mislabled books act as ethically as Zaid?

 

Perhaps because I am a civil litigator I have been pondering what causes of action could be asserted by the true owners of pedigree books that are now denied recognition because CGC has inappropriately labled the wrong book as a pedigree. Several come to mind. So if this truly is an issue, it's in eveyone's interest to get it right.