• 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.

MILE HIGH ACTION #1 VS ALLENTOWN DETECTIVE # 27

Started by action1kid,

92 posts in this topic

esquirecomics

esquirecomics

Posted
Posted

Oh gawd, I can't believe I am going to do this but I actually need to somewhat disagree with Tim and lean towards Scott's side. Oh, that hurt to admit. tonofbricks.gif

 

Tim, I really don't see it either appropriate or fair to taint Dave A. with a "selfish" monocle simply because he has not graded the Action #1 or - I don't even know if this part is true - not allowed anyone to view the book. Why should he? He doesn't owe any of us an answer to the lingering questions. This book is worth more than a million dollars and is probably - I hope - locked away in a bank vault somewhere. Hell if I would allow someone to touch or view it. And I certainly wouldn't care if I owned that book if it had color touch or not!

 

Has anyone ever asked Dave the simple question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rip

Rip

Posted
Posted
The T206 Wagner card is rumored to actually be trimmed. And in my opinion the card clearly is. The original owner of the card claims to have pictures in the unaltered state. It is symblomatic of the utter incompetance of PSA.

I know its rumored that's why I stated it. If it was that easy I'm sure the truth would of come out by now.

 

http://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_19.html

http://www.t206museum.com/page/cardweek_1.html

http://www.t206museum.com/page/discussion_2.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tth2

tth2

Posted
Posted
Tim, I really don't see it either appropriate or fair to taint Dave A. with a "selfish" monocle simply because he has not graded the Action #1 or - I don't even know if this part is true - not allowed anyone to view the book.

Geez, guys, the "selfish" comment was made tongue in cheek, I just wanted to be able to see a scan or image of the book. Simply showing a scan wouldn't address any questions about restoration anyway. I understand he has no obligation to let the rest of us see it, but it's such a historic book that I wish he would. Even most great paintings that are in private collections, never to be seen in person by the great unwashed, have at least been photographed and published.

 

My point about putting rumors to rest was not made tongue in cheek, however. Also, I never stated that the book should be submitted to CGC, just that some up-to-date corroboration of its unrestored state would help dispel them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FFB

FFB

Posted
Posted
Tim, I really don't see it either appropriate or fair to taint Dave A. with a "selfish" monocle simply because he has not graded the Action #1 or - I don't even know if this part is true - not allowed anyone to view the book.

Geez, guys, the "selfish" comment was made tongue in cheek, I just wanted to be able to see a scan or image of the book. Simply showing a scan wouldn't address any questions about restoration anyway. I understand he has no obligation to let the rest of us see it, but it's such a historic book that I wish he would. Even most great paintings that are in private collections, never to be seen in person by the great unwashed, have at least been photographed and published.

 

My point about putting rumors to rest was not made tongue in cheek, however. Also, I never stated that the book should be submitted to CGC, just that some up-to-date corroboration of its unrestored state would help dispel them.

 

Since the rumors are apparently based on nothing more than a couple of newsgroup posts from seven years ago, why do we need an updated statement of non-restoration? Steve's comment that it wasn't restored was two years ago. Besides, I doubt if Tracey Heft had any real information about there being any color touch on the Church Action #1 when he made that old newsgroup post. More likely (based on my reading of what he wrote), he was making statements based on assumptions of what may have been done to the book, if in fact it had ever been restored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tth2

tth2

Posted
Posted

Steve made his post 2 years ago, but he doesn't say when he actually saw the book.

 

Look, I have no skin in this debate, other than the fanboy in me wanting to see the book. The question was asked why do these rumors persist, and I simply stated the obvious and proposed a solution that if implemented would, in my opinion, help put the rumors to bed. Perhaps it would not, but what has taken place up to now has clearly not put the rumors to bed. I was and am not commenting on or in any way endorsing the veracity of the rumors.

 

I phrased part of my answer as a joke which apparently did not come off, so I apologize to Mr. Anderson for implying that any of his actions (no pun intended) have been inappropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FFB

FFB

Posted
Posted
Steve made his post 2 years ago, but he doesn't say when he actually saw the book.

 

Look, I have no skin in this debate, other than the fanboy in me wanting to see the book. The question was asked why do these rumors persist, and I simply stated the obvious and proposed a solution that if implemented would, in my opinion, help put the rumors to bed. Perhaps it would not, but what has taken place up to now has clearly not put the rumors to bed. I was and am not commenting on or in any way endorsing the veracity of the rumors.

 

I phrased part of my answer as a joke which apparently did not come off, so I apologize to Mr. Anderson for implying that any of his actions (no pun intended) have been inappropriate.

 

I hear you. Not to prolong the debate because I realize you're not saying the book is color touched, but just to add an observation -- it is true that we don't know when Steve F. saw the book, but we can be reasonably sure that he saw it while Dave Anderson has owned it (because he bought it in the early 1980s). Dave Anderson is not the guy who is known for having color touched various Church books, so if it didn't have any CT when Steve F. saw it, it probably hasn't been color touched since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
esquirecomics

esquirecomics

Posted
Posted

Not a prob Tim. Sorry that I didn't catch the "tongue-in-cheek" aspect of your post (if I was as skilled as RedHook I would have a cool image here, but no can do).

 

No doubt Dave will be attending the Baltimore Con so someone can ask him directly and see if he responds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FFB

FFB

Posted
Posted

 

Can you imagine a trimming scandal like that surrounding the Church Action #1 or the Allentown Detective #27? A dot of color touch or glue is one thing -- those could be removed pretty easily with little or no damage to the book. But trimming? Yeesh.

foreheadslap.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
esquirecomics

esquirecomics

Posted
Posted

 

When the show ended, Mastro and boyhood friend Rob Lifson drove to Sevchuk's card shop in a dingy Hicksville, L.I., strip mall to inspect the Wagner and offer a deal to regular customer Alan Ray, the card's owner.

 

Man, this transaction took place right by where I used to live!!!! I think I actually was in that store. It could have been mine! Who knew. foreheadslap.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rip

Rip

Posted
Posted

Reading about cards really puts our comic world in prespective.

They've gone through much of the same [embarrassing lack of self control]. But it seems like they're a few years ahead of us.

 

"The more authentications on the item, the better. Collectors want confidence, and are willing to pay for it." They also have a group of doomsayers just like our market.

 

This is paraphrasing Bill Mastro by the way... tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tth2

tth2

Posted
Posted
Reading about cards really puts our comic world in prespective.

They've gone through much of the same [embarrassing lack of self control]. But it seems like they're a few years ahead of us.

I wonder if the card collectors have made as big a fuss about the Gretzky name being associated with the card as people here have about Nick Cage's name being put on various CGC labels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing