what would you do if you found the mile high collection 10 years ago?

[FFB]

I have no problem with whatever amount chuck paid the Church heirs for their books. Either they named a price and he accepted or vice versa. Nothing I wouldn't have done,and something I hope to do.

But to read people saying they were racists so it doesn't really matter is pure BS.

 

Just for that, I am going to wipe my butt with your ASM#11 before sending it to you.

 

 

BEFORE SENDING IT????

You mean I won't have to flip at WW?If you don't get it out soon,the check will bounce and then I'll never get it.

 

Your check didn't arrive until Tuesday. If you wanted it sooner, you should have paid sooner.

[october]

As soon as I heard that Chuck had to rescue Church's art from the garbage heap, I lost all sympathy for his heirs. They sell off his house and his comics before he is even dead, and then toss out his life's work like it was a moldy sack of tangerines. Screew them. Even if they were "ripped off" (which I don't think they were, not morally and CERTAINLY not legally), I wouldn't care. Karma is a beeyotch and they reaped exactly what they sowed.

 

 

 

 

[shadroch]

I have no problem with whatever amount chuck paid the Church heirs for their books. Either they named a price and he accepted or vice versa. Nothing I wouldn't have done,and something I hope to do.

But to read people saying they were racists so it doesn't really matter is pure BS.

 

Just for that, I am going to wipe my butt with your ASM#11 before sending it to you.

 

 

BEFORE SENDING IT????

You mean I won't have to flip at WW?If you don't get it out soon,the check will bounce and then I'll never get it.

 

Your check didn't arrive until Tuesday. If you wanted it sooner, you should have paid sooner.

 

 

I just assumed you'd send it out right away,based on my sterling reputation. Had I known you were going to wait unti you got paid,I'd have made sure there was money in that account.

[bluenote]

I have no problem with what Chuck did. I will go on record as saying that I would do exactly the same thing if presented with the opportunity. If that makes me a bad guy, then [#@$%!!!] you.

 

I would have done the same thing. But I'd KNOW I was being a [#@$%!!!] and ripping them off. I might feel justified for the reasons you state - - but I wouldnt delude myself that It was the right thing to do. Thats the difference. I wouldnt act like Chuck does, all heroic and even insulting the heirs after the fact.

 

 

how did he act heroic and insulting... i spent 40 minutes reading the articles of the finsd on his web site... he mentioned that he wanted to do something for mr church... which he did..... but i do not think it was in terms of financila.. if thats was the casse the heirs would not have hired the attorney and filed the suit against him

[Aman619]

"heroic" as in his constant (weekly in now monthly) CBG columns wherein he crows about himself his accomplishments and his irreplaceable historic effect on the history of the comics industry; ---- and almost daily in his bizarre email blogs about all things Chucky (Thia years manure has settled in nicely and Oh - we're having an 80% off sale too!) that many of us get because we ordered a book off his site once upon a time.

 

"insulting" referred to his comments about the Church family years after the deal in order to (in my estimation) deal with the popular negative light his handling of the deal has attained. He cant defend it truthfully ("Heck, I got em as cheap as I could and got the hell outta there" ...and boy howdy was I doggoned surprised they actually asked me back to whup 'em agin!!! ) .. So in frustration, after nearly 30 years of fuss about something he did when he was a lad living in his car "f'crissakes give me a break already!!" - - - he has slipped in a few "They werent no heroes themselves I tell ya!!! to tar their reputations and excuse his behavior.

 

bah.

[bluenote]

 

 

"insulting" referred to his comments about the Church family years after the deal in order to (in my estimation) deal with the popular negative light his handling of the deal has attained. He cant defend it truthfully ("Heck, I got em as cheap as I could and got the hell outta there" ...and boy howdy was I doggoned surprised they actually asked me back to whup 'em agin!!! ) .. So in frustration, after nearly 30 years of fuss about something he did when he was a lad living in his car "f'crissakes give me a break already!!" - - - he has slipped in a few "They werent no heroes themselves I tell ya!!! to tar their reputations and excuse his behavior.

 

bah.

 

 

i spent a good 45 minutes yesterday reading his logs of the collection were he in details explains what happened.. but nowhere do i see where he says.. he whuped them again.... are u trying to say he was bragging about how he ripped them off? also i think u are forgetting he asked them what they wanted for them... they apparently said 2,ooo (although when i emailed chuck what he paid.. he said it was confidential) but from reading the boarsds that figure seems to be the one floating around the most... okay maybe he did get a very good deal... but u are making it sound like chuck is at fault here.... i agree he is gloating a little bit.. but i do not think this collection made him a rich man

[Aman619]

Blue - - this gets discussed here evry now and again, and we end up with two distinct camps: those who say "laissez faire, anything goes in business, Chuck didnt put a gun to their heads etc", and the others who feel it was a classic case of an unscrupulous dealer grabbing artifacts of great value from its unsuspecting (and trusting) owners .

 

Now, most of us if given the opportunity of buying 20,000 near perfect and near complete runs of GA comics at cover price (10 cents apiece = $2000) would do the same, and even drive away cursing how they KNOW they could have gotten it for even less!! That is human nature. But because WE would do it or that Chuck actually did, doesnt make it "right" --- only what's to be expected from greedy human nature.

 

So, with Chuck's earlier attitude of : Dont ask me about that collection, Im done talking about it: what about what Ive accomplished with the rest of my life? (Which he actually said to me 10 years ago when I gushed to him about how awesome it must have felt that day when he first laid eyes on the comics!) coupled with his blow by blow heroic story of the events with the Church heirs that he serialized in CBG (the articles you probably have read on his site) about saving the comics, and the art as best he could etc.... he just wants to change the record of history of his actions in regards to the Church family.

 

As has been pointed out here: all we know to date is ONLY what Chuck has said about this deal. Nobody else has spoken of it or was there.

 

So all we have to draw our conclusions is Chucks accounts and common sense.

 

Now I ask you: If that were you, and you arrived there and were offerred the deal at 10 cents a book, and took it, would you really expect us to believe any story you concocted about how you did the "right thing" by them? Or they deserved only ten cents a book?? Even in 1977 they were worth FAR FAR dare I say WAY MORE than that. It has been suggested here that the "correct" and fairest action would have been to broker them for a percentage of the profit to the highest bidders. I think that would have been very lucrative for all sides, and maybe Chuck wouldnt be dogged by accusations (that apparently hit home judging by his words) to this day, blemishing his otherwise good reputation for all but the most dog-eat-dog of us who seem to be of a mind that says "Screww the Churches, they shoulda done their homework they didnt wanna get screwwed!"

[bluenote]

Blue - - this gets discussed here evry now and again, and we end up with two distinct camps: those who say "laissez faire, anything goes in business, Chuck didnt put a gun to their heads etc", and the others who feel it was a classic case of an unscrupulous dealer grabbing artifacts of great value from its unsuspecting (and trusting) owners .

 

Now, most of us if given the opportunity of buying 20,000 near perfect and near complete runs of GA comics at cover price (10 cents apiece = $2000) would do the same, and even drive away cursing how they KNOW they could have gotten it for even less!! That is human nature. But because WE would do it or that Chuck actually did, doesnt make it "right" --- only what's to be expected from greedy human nature.

 

So, with Chuck's earlier attitude of : Dont ask me about that collection, Im done talking about it: what about what Ive accomplished with the rest of my life? (Which he actually said to me 10 years ago when I gushed to him about how awesome it must have felt that day when he first laid eyes on the comics!) coupled with his blow by blow heroic story of the events with the Church heirs that he serialized in CBG (the articles you probably have read on his site) about saving the comics, and the art as best he could etc.... he just wants to change the record of history of his actions in regards to the Church family.

 

As has been pointed out here: all we know to date is ONLY what Chuck has said about this deal. Nobody else has spoken of it or was there.

 

So all we have to draw our conclusions is Chucks accounts and common sense.

 

Now I ask you: If that were you, and you arrived there and were offerred the deal at 10 cents a book, and took it, would you really expect us to believe any story you concocted about how you did the "right thing" by them? Or they deserved only ten cents a book?? Even in 1977 they were worth FAR FAR dare I say WAY MORE than that. It has been suggested here that the "correct" and fairest action would have been to broker them for a percentage of the profit to the highest bidders. I think that would have been very lucrative for all sides, and maybe Chuck wouldnt be dogged by accusations (that apparently hit home judging by his words) to this day, blemishing his otherwise good reputation for all but the most dog-eat-dog of us who seem to be of a mind that says "Screww the Churches, they shoulda done their homework they didnt wanna get screwwed!"

 

 

1st i agree with some of what u are saying...its very difficult to take all of chucks word becasue he is the one telling the story... it would be different if one church heirs had there opinion.... but u are in correct in assuming i would have done the same thing....i get a very bad feeling when i get ripped off... i know alot of comic dealers could care less if ur father was on their death bed.. they just want the books...most comic dealers have a pirates. .attitude and those who say they don't are LIEING...now if i knew the books were valauble (which we know they were) i would have hooked the church heirs up with some money.. i mean chuck sold 4 of the books right off the bat that got him over $75,000 ---- 75 k went along way in 1977....but it looks like ur argument is with the way chuck took advantage of the church heirs did disrespected them afterwards.. i can only go with what he says on his web site.. and since he is writting a book in the futire i guess hew will leave out alot of things.. all i know that i can honestly say i would not have just gave the church heiors $ 2,000 and that was it when i knew the collection was worth atleast 200-k at that time(not sure of that estimate just thru it out there) but u have made some good points... but i am curious why do you dislike chuck so much out of all the post you seem to be the most botherd by what chuck did ? have u had a bad experince wit hchuck personally? do u know the church family in some way or what?

[FFB]

Now I ask you: If that were you, and you arrived there and were offerred the deal at 10 cents a book, and took it, would you really expect us to believe any story you concocted about how you did the "right thing" by them? Or they deserved only ten cents a book?? Even in 1977 they were worth FAR FAR dare I say WAY MORE than that. It has been suggested here that the "correct" and fairest action would have been to broker them for a percentage of the profit to the highest bidders. I think that would have been very lucrative for all sides, and maybe Chuck wouldnt be dogged by accusations (that apparently hit home judging by his words) to this day, blemishing his otherwise good reputation for all but the most dog-eat-dog of us who seem to be of a mind that says "Screww the Churches, they shoulda done their homework they didnt wanna get screwwed!"

 

From the Church article:

 

Once I had gotten a pretty good gauge of what was on the floor (about 60 stacks), I asked how much was being sought for the collection. It was at that point that it was made clear to me that it was not a question of how much I was willing to pay, but rather if I was willing to take them "all." I told the sellers that I was more than willing to take all the books, but that we would have to either make payment arrangements, or that I could sell the comics for them on consignment. Both of these proposals were immediately rejected out of hand, even after I had shown the sellers collector prices for old comics in an Overstreet that I had brought along. They were emphatic that they wanted nothing to do with the sales process, and that they wanted immediate payment. I explained to them that I had limited resources available to me for an immediate purchase, and they said "just make us an offer..."

 

Without going into the details of the exact amount I paid, I offered a price per frying chicken box. For those of you who've never seen one, a chicken box is used by the shippers of frozen poultry to ship their birds from the slaughtering plant, to the grocery stores. The boxes are made of very heavy gauge waxed paper, and come with a tight sealing lid. The boxes could be had for free from grocery stores, and once they were well cleaned and deodorized, they exactly fit two parallel rows of comics. In the days before the invention of long whites, chicken boxes were a primary tool for all comics retailers, and also for many collectors. A typical chicken box held 550 newer comics, or about 300 Golden Age issues. I used the chicken box as a unit of measure because I knew I would have to carry the comics out of the basement a box at a time, and I figured that if we just kept track of the number of trips I made, we could then multiply the offer amount by the number of boxes I'd hauled, in order to reach the final total.

[bluenote]

FFB--- I'M CURIOUS WERE YOU FOUND THIS ARTICLE with the statemt chuck made of " but that we would have to either make payment arrangements, or that I . Both of these proposals were immediately rejected out of hand, even after I had shown the sellers collector prices for old comics in an Overstreet that I had brought along. They were emphatic that they wanted nothing to do with the sales process, and that they wanted immediate payment. "

 

 

 

i'm curious were it says in chicks articles that the heirs did not want to do a consignmentr.. becasue if that were true.... chuck still would have took the books and sent them the consignment share of the sell of the books.... thr chuch heirs were mostly concerned about getting rid of the books to sell the house.... are u saying that chuck showed the m a current overstreet and they turned down the prices of the most expensive books... remember from chucks on web site srticles he sold 4 books that made him over 4 $75,000 right off the bat.. just 4 books are u saying the church heirs would take $2,000 for all the books when just 4 of the books were valued at$ 75,ooo... also why would the church heors later try to sue .. if they wanted no part of it?

[FFB]

1st i agree with some of what u are saying...its very difficult to take all of chucks word becasue he is the one telling the story... it would be different if one church heirs had there opinion.... but u are in correct in assuming i would have done the same thing....i get a very bad feeling when i get ripped off... i know alot of comic dealers could care less if ur father was on their death bed.. they just want the books...most comic dealers have a pirates. .attitude and those who say they don't are LIEING...now if i knew the books were valauble (which we know they were) i would have hooked the church heirs up with some money.. i mean chuck sold 4 of the books right off the bat that got him over $75,000 ---- 75 k went along way in 1977....but it looks like ur argument is with the way chuck took advantage of the church heirs did disrespected them afterwards.. i can only go with what he says on his web site.. and since he is writting a book in the futire i guess hew will leave out alot of things.. all i know that i can honestly say i would not have just gave the church heiors $ 2,000 and that was it when i knew the collection was worth atleast 200-k at that time(not sure of that estimate just thru it out there) but u have made some good points... but i am curious why do you dislike chuck so much out of all the post you seem to be the most botherd by what chuck did ? have u had a bad experince wit hchuck personally? do u know the church family in some way or what?

 

Where in the world did you get the idea that Chuck sold four of the books in 1977 for $75,000?

[FFB]

FFB--- I'M CURIOUS WERE YOU FOUND THIS ARTICLE with the statemt chuck made of " but that we would have to either make payment arrangements, or that I . Both of these proposals were immediately rejected out of hand, even after I had shown the sellers collector prices for old comics in an Overstreet that I had brought along. They were emphatic that they wanted nothing to do with the sales process, and that they wanted immediate payment. "

 

 

 

i'm curious were it says in chicks articles that the heirs did not want to do a consignmentr.. becasue if that were true.... chuck still would have took the books and sent them the consignment share of the sell of the books.... thr chuch heirs were mostly concerned about getting rid of the books to sell the house.... are u saying that chuck showed the m a current overstreet and they turned down the prices of the most expensive books... remember from chucks on web site srticles he sold 4 books that made him over 4 $75,000 right off the bat.. just 4 books are u saying the church heirs would take $2,000 for all the books when just 4 of the books were valued at$ 75,ooo... also why would the church heors later try to sue .. if they wanted no part of it?

 

I am curious where you got any of your "facts." I got mine directly from Chuck's "Tales from the Database" columns on the original Edgar Church find. What I copied before is a direct quote from Chuck about how the deal happened.

[tth2]

1st i agree with some of what u are saying...its very difficult to take all of chucks word becasue he is the one telling the story... it would be different if one church heirs had there opinion.... but u are in correct in assuming i would have done the same thing....i get a very bad feeling when i get ripped off... i know alot of comic dealers could care less if ur father was on their death bed.. they just want the books...most comic dealers have a pirates. .attitude and those who say they don't are LIEING...now if i knew the books were valauble (which we know they were) i would have hooked the church heirs up with some money.. i mean chuck sold 4 of the books right off the bat that got him over $75,000 ---- 75 k went along way in 1977....but it looks like ur argument is with the way chuck took advantage of the church heirs did disrespected them afterwards.. i can only go with what he says on his web site.. and since he is writting a book in the futire i guess hew will leave out alot of things.. all i know that i can honestly say i would not have just gave the church heiors $ 2,000 and that was it when i knew the collection was worth atleast 200-k at that time(not sure of that estimate just thru it out there) but u have made some good points... but i am curious why do you dislike chuck so much out of all the post you seem to be the most botherd by what chuck did ? have u had a bad experince wit hchuck personally? do u know the church family in some way or what?

 

Where in the world did you get the idea that Chuck sold four of the books in 1977 for $75,000?

Considering that the Church Action #1 didn't reach the $20K mark until the early 1980s, and even then people thought the buyer was insane for paying that price, it is highly unlikely that 4 books could have sold for over $75K in 1977. That would have meant they averaged almost $20K each, which was an incomprehensible number for comics in 1977.

 

It cracks me up when people use these kinds of numbers when they talk about the 1970s. Perhaps someone can doublecheck me with a OS from the era, but my recollection is that in 1977, FF #1 was a $100-200 book and Action #1 and Marvel Comics #1 were mid-four figures. And paying multiples of OS for HG copies was not common practice back then. In fact, it was Chuck with the Church collection that helped to start the practice of demanding above-Guide prices.

[tth2]

What I copied before is a direct quote from Chuck about how the deal happened.

Which of course doesn't mean that it's gospel truth.

[FFB]

What I copied before is a direct quote from Chuck about how the deal happened.

Which of course doesn't mean that it's gospel truth.

 

No, but it's the only word out there from someone who was present when the deal happened. And it is dramatically different from the unfounded statements I've seen here from countless people who are probably just making it up as they go along, or who have passed along rumors across so many different sources that the veracity of the stories they tell rivals that of a typical cover story of the Weekly World News (the current cover story is titled "Colony of Super-Evolved Microbes Has Tiny Kingdom in TED KENNEDY'S BUTT" -- well, ok, maybe that is not such a far-fetched example).

 

In any event, if there's a better source of real, verifiable information on the deal out there, I'm all ears.

[tth2]

Wouldn't the complaint filed by Edgar's heirs, if someone could pull it up, contain the facts from the perspective of the other party to this deal? It should at a minimum state how much Chuck paid them, no?

[FFB]

Wouldn't the complaint filed by Edgar's heirs, if someone could pull it up, contain the facts from the perspective of the other party to this deal? It should at a minimum state how much Chuck paid them, no?

 

Other than rumors, I'm not sure that such a lawsuit was ever filed. Chuck said in his column that after buying the last of Edgar Church's posters and artwork, he never heard from the heirs ever again. Seems to me that even if he purposefully neglected to mention a lawsuit, he probably would not have said that he "never heard from the heirs again" if he had been sued years later.

[greggy]

Wouldn't the complaint filed by Edgar's heirs, if someone could pull it up, contain the facts from the perspective of the other party to this deal? It should at a minimum state how much Chuck paid them, no?

This "complaint" appears to be highly suspect as well, as forum member "ghoulaid", a long-term friend of Chuck has advised that he is not aware of any complaint. Also, he's advised that the rumour put out by lou_fine regarding the IRS going after Chuck but couldn't collect because he transferred the assets to his wife is "news" to him as well.

 

I know that JC was the first to post about this supposed lawsuit that a lot of people take as being gospel when we don't even know that it even happened. Like him or hate it but most of the stories being thrown out on the boards is so

[drdonaldblake]

that photo of chuck with teh bats 1 and supes 1 is incredible

 

u can see how amazing the condition of those books are.....................and 22000 of them GOOD LORD!

[mr_highgrade]

any guesses as to how much they got for the house? they should have thrown the house away...

 

 

Here's how much the house was going for last year.