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

[garthgantu]

If a fanboy did buy the house, would he store his books in the basement?

 

Yes, Deathlok, YES - you've hit upon the real secret... the house's basement is the "fountain of youth" for comic books... simply place any beat-up POS copies of pre-1955 comics in the basement for a period of 2 days and they magically revert to NM+ condition!

 

I really wouldn't be surprised if, in trying to fit more comics in the house, Church stuffed a few thousand of the funny animal issues in the rafters somewhere...

[FFB]

 

You know I read this same paragraph you cite as some kind of proof, and I just scratch my head. Wait a minute I say, Chuck says he SHOWED them how much they were worth in the Overstreet Guide, and they said NO? He proved to them that just a few dozen of the best books were worth twice the price he says they wanted for ALL 18000 book???

 

and you actually take his word on this??

 

This part of Chuck's account does seem pretty iffy. How much could the 'bungalow' have sold for in '77... $50k ? $75k? If you were about to sell the house and someone pointed out that some of the contents of the house were worth more than the house itself, wouldn't you change your tune about finding another way to liquidate those valuable contents? Let's face it, the first thing that happens when you show any casual owner (non-collector) of even a handful of comic books the Overstreet Guide, their eyes get big and they have visions of their books being worth a mint. The Church heirs were in fact sitting on a mint, with the proof supposedly presented to them in black and white, and they insisted on 'clearing out' the comics ASAP at essentially any price? Seems like history being rewritten here. The conversation must have gone something like this:

 

Chuck: "Look at this official price guide for comic books..it's in it's 8th edition, so you know it's at least reasonably authoritative. The books I see stacked here would guide for tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars - let me help you sell them and split the proceeds, and I'll guarantee you $100,000 miniumum for your share!"

 

Church Heirs: "What part of 'get the funnybooks the hell out of here don't you understand, hippie-man? We've got a house worth $45,000 here, and we wanna sell it fast; $2,000 for the periodicals or we haul them to the dump, no matter how much they're worth!"

 

I do think Chuck has attained some level of greatness - in public relations. His account of the Church Pedigree acquisition is hauntingly similar to some of Caesar's published reports from the front lines of the Gallic Wars. (Caesar was great at rewriting recent history for public consumption too - it got him 'elected' emperor.)

 

*Someone tracked down the sales records for the house from the time period in question, and posted that info awhile back, as I recall... was the selling price of the house included in that thread/post?

 

Garth:

 

Chuck showed them the guide before he got to the closet and the heirs gave a price per box before Chuck saw what was in the closet. The books outside of the closet were the relatively inexpensive 1950s westerns and other stuff like that. That's what the heirs saw prices for.

 

When he saw what was in the closet, if Chuck decided not to bid against himself and raise the price to something beyond what he could afford at the time, I don't see anything wrong with that. I'd have done the same thing under all the same circumstances and anyone else who says they'd have done otherwise under the circumstances Chuck was faced with at the time is either a damned fool or a liar.

[FFB]

By the way, Chuck Rozanski just responded to my email and confirmed that there was never any litigation involving the Church heirs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Howdy Scott!

 

I, too, once heard rumors of a supposed lawsuit a few years back. Once these kind of dumb and malicious rumors get started, they seem to never die. I was never able to track the source of the rumor, but I have to assume that it was someone who was unhappy about my good fortune engaging in some wishful thinking. In reality, there has never been any kind of litigation between myself and anyone, as regards the Edgar Church collection.

 

All the best!

 

Chuck

[Foolkiller]

Now, that explains why whenever you do a search for the old documents or any reference to any litigation nothing comes up.

 

It occurs to me more and more that the level of poorly informed people populating these misinformed rumors (about many subjects) seems to be growing.

[tth2]

Now, that explains why whenever you do a search for the old documents or any reference to any litigation nothing comes up.

 

It occurs to me more and more that the level of poorly informed people populating these misinformed rumors (about many subjects) seems to be growing.

Is there ANY litigation involving one Charles Rozanski?

[garthgantu]

Garth:

 

Chuck showed them the guide before he got to the closet and the heirs gave a price per box before Chuck saw what was in the closet. The books outside of the closet were the relatively inexpensive 1950s westerns and other stuff like that. That's what the heirs saw prices for.

 

When he saw what was in the closet, if Chuck decided not to bid against himself and raise the price to something beyond what he could afford at the time, I don't see anything wrong with that. I'd have done the same thing under all the same circumstances and anyone else who says they'd have done otherwise under the circumstances Chuck was faced with at the time is either a damned fool or a liar.

 

Scott:

 

Again, you're taking Chuck's account completely literally. I respectfully submit that this may be a poor choice. In my experience, and I'm no cop (though I've been invited to play one on local access TV more than once), no one side of a story is completely accurate. Since we have no 'other' side of the story in this case, you accept the lone account, in its entirety, at your peril.

 

As for what others might have done if placed in Chuck's position, whether in 1977 or 1995, the answer(s) would probably surprise you - and me - more than you realize. I don't think Chuck's choice was the 'default' choice, even for a rabid comic fanboy, of which I count myself one.

 

Chuck's 'commitment' to seeing Church's name remembered through the ages - at least among comic book fans - is pretty spotty. He's usurped the usual status accorded to pedigrees in terms of the name. It would sell just as well if it were named "The Church Pedigree" by one and all, but Chuck's other comics wouldn't sell as well, so what the hey - the old guy's dead, right?

 

Chuck could arrange for "The Edgar Church Memorial Fund" to sponsor a booth or exhibit or panel at various conventions. Hell, he could arrange to have Edgar's original art shown in galleries or museums - even if it isn't necessarily of the usual quality for such showings. But what's he done? Used one of Edgar's sketches on the cover of the catalog scattering all of Edgar's beloved books to the winds? A modest display of a few dozen Edgar originals at one or two shows a quarter century ago?

[FFB]

Garth:

 

Chuck showed them the guide before he got to the closet and the heirs gave a price per box before Chuck saw what was in the closet. The books outside of the closet were the relatively inexpensive 1950s westerns and other stuff like that. That's what the heirs saw prices for.

 

When he saw what was in the closet, if Chuck decided not to bid against himself and raise the price to something beyond what he could afford at the time, I don't see anything wrong with that. I'd have done the same thing under all the same circumstances and anyone else who says they'd have done otherwise under the circumstances Chuck was faced with at the time is either a damned fool or a liar.

 

Scott:

 

Again, you're taking Chuck's account completely literally.

 

And you're saying "I think he's lying" with no evidence whatsoever. The only basis I see for your belief is your cynicism.

 

As for what others might have done if placed in Chuck's position, whether in 1977 or 1995, the answer(s) would probably surprise you - and me - more than you realize. I don't think Chuck's choice was the 'default' choice, even for a rabid comic fanboy, of which I count myself one.

 

Chuck's 'commitment' to seeing Church's name remembered through the ages - at least among comic book fans - is pretty spotty. He's usurped the usual status accorded to pedigrees in terms of the name. It would sell just as well if it were named "The Church Pedigree" by one and all, but Chuck's other comics wouldn't sell as well, so what the hey - the old guy's dead, right?

 

Chuck could arrange for "The Edgar Church Memorial Fund" to sponsor a booth or exhibit or panel at various conventions. Hell, he could arrange to have Edgar's original art shown in galleries or museums - even if it isn't necessarily of the usual quality for such showings. But what's he done? Used one of Edgar's sketches on the cover of the catalog scattering all of Edgar's beloved books to the winds? A modest display of a few dozen Edgar originals at one or two shows a quarter century ago?

 

OK, but why single out Chuck? Who erected the statue to Tom Reilly? I must have missed that one in my last walk through downtown Berkeley. Or the Okajima girl? Or Lamont Larson? Or the guy who saved all the Rockford books? The list goes on and on. What Chuck has done to have Edgar's name remembered goes far beyond what any of the other dealers did to remember the people who amassed these collections. But because Chuck didn't do it exactly the way you would have done it, everything he says about how he got the collection is a lie?

 

yourself!

[tth2]

Scott, I think all people are saying is that you seemed to have assumed the role of advocate rather than maintaining any kind of healthy skepticism regarding the truth of the facts according to Chuck. I totally agree with you that there was nothing wrong with what Chuck did, and I would have done the exact same thing (actually, I probably would have called the Churches up afterwards to taunt them ). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to take Chuck's version of the facts with a big grain of salt (and I don't think doing so means we're being cynical, it just means we're not acting like we were born yesterday).

[FFB]

Scott, I think all people are saying is that you seemed to have assumed the role of advocate rather than maintaining any kind of healthy skepticism regarding the truth of the facts according to Chuck.

 

Gee, thanks for the clarification, Tim. I guess I must have misinterpreted Garth's slam against Chuck for not giving Edgar his due, or the insinuation that Garth would have dug deep and shared his good fortune with the heirs after the fact.

[tth2]

Scott, I think all people are saying is that you seemed to have assumed the role of advocate rather than maintaining any kind of healthy skepticism regarding the truth of the facts according to Chuck.

 

Gee, thanks for the clarification, Tim. I guess I must have misinterpreted Garth's slam against Chuck for not giving Edgar his due, or the insinuation that Garth would have dug deep and shared his good fortune with the heirs after the fact.

Being sarcastic with the messenger will get you nowhere!

 

I know YOU understand, I'm just trying to make sure other people understand that they're really fighting with you on 2 separate (and in my opinion unrelated) issues: (i) accepting Chuck's version of things as gospel truth and (ii) whether Chuck's actions were acceptable.

 

Well, actually, I guess I'm also saying that in making your points in support of (ii), you're slipping over into (i).

[garthgantu]

Scott, the only other 'point of reference' I have is a long-time friend who worked for Chuck back in the late '70s/early '80s. This friend, who shall remain nameless, is a well-known author and writer (for magazines including WIRED and MIT's Technology Review). He's a very 'conservative' guy in the sense that he's not inclined toward hyperbole and he's very conscientious about getting his facts straight.

 

He told me that Chuck used to crow about how he 'stole' the Church collection from Edgar's heirs and made a mint in the process.

 

(I posted about this once before, shortly after joining the boards.)

 

Now this may have been before Chuck realized the potential backlash that he'd receive over the years. It was after all shortly after the collection was purchased by Chuck. But I trust this friend implicitly. If he says Chuck was a blow-hard who bragged about ripping off the Churches to get his hands on the collection, that's good enough for me. I don't expect a third-hand account to be sufficient 'evidence' for others, but at least it might help you understand why I'm taking a somewhat more cynical view of Chuck's version of events.

 

As for others who discovered pedigrees and did nothing to memorialize the original owners of those collections,

- many of those pedigrees were brought in to dealers who didn't even know who assembled the original collection

- at least some of those OOs have their names forever linked to their collections, even if they don't own them anymore

- most of the other pedigrees were far far smaller in size and stature than Church's, and wouldn't net you millions of dollars.

 

I'm not saying those other acquirers of pedigrees couldn't or shouldn't have done something in the name of the collection they acquired; maybe they should have. But with Chuck as their primary example, I can see why the thought never occured to them.

[tth2]

He told me that Chuck used to crow about how he 'stole' the Church collection from Edgar's heirs and made a mint in the process.

I guess I'm still failing to understand the issue. I work with or know investment bankers, private equity guys, bond traders, etc., and they love to talk all day about how badly they ed the other guy, or how they "stole" a company or asset. Chuck got the Church collection at an insanely cheap price, made what seemed like a mint at the time from selling it off, and bragged to his buddies about it. I would call that... human nature.

[Silver Surfer]

Ten bucks says that if Mark Zaid had seen that listing, he'd be the owner of that house right now.

 

Mark

 

At the time, I was kinda hoping that either Verzyl or Geppi would have bought the thing. But, alas, twas no apparent interest from either ....

 

Unfortunately, the current owner is not a comic collector ....

 

Alan

 

I'd rather buy the Marvel Comics #1 Pay Copy.

[Aman619]

He told me that Chuck used to crow about how he 'stole' the Church collection from Edgar's heirs and made a mint in the process.

I guess I'm still failing to understand the issue. I work with or know investment bankers, private equity guys, bond traders, etc., and they love to talk all day about how badly they ed the other guy, or how they "stole" a company or asset. Chuck got the Church collection at an insanely cheap price, made what seemed like a mint at the time from selling it off, and bragged to his buddies about it. I would call that... human nature.

 

to use your argument earlier about Scotts statements being 2 separate arguments..... 1) youre saying that all people who screw others in business deals of one kind of another are only exhibitoing human nature in action but 2) Chuck did no such thing according to HIS version of events. According to Chuck, he was generous to the heirs and accepted THEIR terms.....so theres no need for argument 1 which absolves him of doing no worse than anyone else.Also, it was stated earlier that Chuck has honored Church by the awarness he has brought to Edgar and his collection. But if Chuck wanted to honor Edgar, why call it the Mile High collection??? It has only been lately by serious comic collectors here on the boards who have begun insisting that we call it the Church collection, similarly the Reilly collection.

[Aman619]

 

You know I read this same paragraph you cite as some kind of proof, and I just scratch my head. Wait a minute I say, Chuck says he SHOWED them how much they were worth in the Overstreet Guide, and they said NO? He proved to them that just a few dozen of the best books were worth twice the price he says they wanted for ALL 18000 book???

 

and you actually take his word on this??

 

This part of Chuck's account does seem pretty iffy. How much could the 'bungalow' have sold for in '77... $50k ? $75k? If you were about to sell the house and someone pointed out that some of the contents of the house were worth more than the house itself, wouldn't you change your tune about finding another way to liquidate those valuable contents? Let's face it, the first thing that happens when you show any casual owner (non-collector) of even a handful of comic books the Overstreet Guide, their eyes get big and they have visions of their books being worth a mint. The Church heirs were in fact sitting on a mint, with the proof supposedly presented to them in black and white, and they insisted on 'clearing out' the comics ASAP at essentially any price? Seems like history being rewritten here. The conversation must have gone something like this:

 

Chuck: "Look at this official price guide for comic books..it's in it's 8th edition, so you know it's at least reasonably authoritative. The books I see stacked here would guide for tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars - let me help you sell them and split the proceeds, and I'll guarantee you $100,000 miniumum for your share!"

 

 

Church Heirs: "What part of 'get the funnybooks the hell out of here don't you understand, hippie-man? We've got a house worth $45,000 here, and we wanna sell it fast; $2,000 for the periodicals or we haul them to the dump, no matter how much they're worth!"

 

I do think Chuck has attained some level of greatness - in public relations. His account of the Church Pedigree acquisition is hauntingly similar to some of Caesar's published reports from the front lines of the Gallic Wars. (Caesar was great at rewriting recent history for public consumption too - it got him 'elected' emperor.)

 

*Someone tracked down the sales records for the house from the time period in question, and posted that info awhile back, as I recall... was the selling price of the house included in that thread/post?

 

 

nicely put...

[tth2]

He told me that Chuck used to crow about how he 'stole' the Church collection from Edgar's heirs and made a mint in the process.

I guess I'm still failing to understand the issue. I work with or know investment bankers, private equity guys, bond traders, etc., and they love to talk all day about how badly they ed the other guy, or how they "stole" a company or asset. Chuck got the Church collection at an insanely cheap price, made what seemed like a mint at the time from selling it off, and bragged to his buddies about it. I would call that... human nature.

 

to use your argument earlier about Scotts statements being 2 separate arguments..... 1) youre saying that all people who screw others in business deals of one kind of another are only exhibitoing human nature in action but 2) Chuck did no such thing according to HIS version of events. According to Chuck, he was generous to the heirs and accepted THEIR terms.....so theres no need for argument 1 which absolves him of doing no worse than anyone else.Also, it was stated earlier that Chuck has honored Church by the awarness he has brought to Edgar and his collection. But if Chuck wanted to honor Edgar, why call it the Mile High collection??? It has only been lately by serious comic collectors here on the boards who have begun insisting that we call it the Church collection, similarly the Reilly collection.

I've never said I believe Chuck's version of the story, certainly not with the same level of unreservedness that Scott does. In fact, Garth's buddy's story seems to ring true, if only because it reflects my own jaded view of human nature. Chuck is not a saint. But for what he did, he is not the devil incarnate either.

[adamstrange]

I guess I'm still failing to understand the issue. I work with or know investment bankers, private equity guys, bond traders, etc., and they love to talk all day about how badly they ed the other guy, or how they "stole" a company or asset.

 

They're just trying to make lawyers look good.

[tth2]

I guess I'm still failing to understand the issue. I work with or know investment bankers, private equity guys, bond traders, etc., and they love to talk all day about how badly they ed the other guy, or how they "stole" a company or asset.

 

They're just trying to make lawyers look good.

We talk trash too!

[PedigreeMan]

Ten bucks says that if Mark Zaid had seen that listing, he'd be the owner of that house right now.

 

Mark

 

At the time, I was kinda hoping that either Verzyl or Geppi would have bought the thing. But, alas, twas no apparent interest from either ....

 

Unfortunately, the current owner is not a comic collector ....

 

Alan

 

I'd rather buy the Marvel Comics #1 Pay Copy.

 

The house was actually much cheaper....

[Aman619]

I've never said I believe Chuck's version of the story, certainly not with the same level of unreservedness that Scott does. In fact, Garth's buddy's story seems to ring true, if only because it reflects my own jaded view of human nature. Chuck is not a saint. But for what he did, he is not the devil incarnate either.

 

well, for whatever reason, FFB seems to buy Chucks press releases verbatim. I keep coming back to common sense which tells me Chucks fullae. But is he the Devil incarnate? nah. Plenty of skumbuckets around who are far worse...Just that IMO the difference between his self-inflated public persona and the truth is vast and I find him very uninspiring and tawdry. The daughters on the other hand.... ouchimama!