Seattle Drug Store question 0

[lou_fine]

On 10/30/2019 at 6:32 AM, Abibliophobia said:

The collection appears to be only a five year run based up internet searches. I assume that may be considered a bit short to recognize it despite apparent quality.

 

On 10/31/2019 at 9:33 PM, Abibliophobia said:

Are you asking me for pics of the COA, the book, or both?  I don’t think that it’s terribly relevant to the discussion about whether the Seattle Drug Store Collection is really a capital “C” collection worthy of the distinction or if it’s a just 5 years worth of high grade books.

I don't understand why it would not be relevant, especially in terms of the 5-year time period.  

For example, if it was the 5-year time period of 1936 to 1941 then it would most definitely qualify for full pedigree status.  Now that we know from Masterchief that it is from only the much more common and abundant 5-year time period of 1966-71 when comic book collecting was already in place, it's rather obvious why this particular collection was not given pedigree status.  Any COA's for books from this time period is really geared more towards marketing hype in hopes of maximizing dollars upon sale, as opposed to anything resembling a true pedigree worthy book.  

[lou_fine]

12 hours ago, Jaylam said:

13 hours ago, Mercury Man said:

On 11/1/2019 at 12:47 PM, MasterChief said:

"these books remained un-touched"

What does that even mean.  How can they even claim that?  Seems like a silly way to say-  "these are really nice copies", but with an over the top dramatic flair. 

You know, like a virgin!

 

Boy, Madonna sure looked young in that video from way back then in '84..............almost forgot how long she's been around.

Although I still remember her more from her "acting" role in Body of Evidence:

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=Body+of+Evidence#imgrc=ima-m7cppXAnpM:

Definitely saw a lot more of her there and shall we say, most definitely NOT un-touched in that movie role.    

[Jaylam]

5 hours ago, lou_fine said:

 

I don't understand why it would not be relevant, especially in terms of the 5-year time period.  

For example, if it was the 5-year time period of 1936 to 1941 then it would most definitely qualify for full pedigree status.  Now that we know from Masterchief that it is from only the much more common and abundant 5-year time period of 1966-71 when comic book collecting was already in place, it's rather obvious why this particular collection was not given pedigree status.  Any COA's for books from this time period is really geared more towards marketing hype in hopes of maximizing dollars upon sale, as opposed to anything resembling a true pedigree worthy book.  

It seems to meet many of the criteria for a pedigree; books purchased by off the rack new (or in this case before they even hit the rack) by one collector at one location over a specified period of time and kept and stored in super high grade condition for many years.  How that is not considered a bonafide pedigree is beyond me.

[southern cross]

Nope. Started to late. If it was started in 61 had all the early marvel keys and or was brought to market before third party grading and was accepted into the collecting community then no problem.

But it fails on those two

[namisgr]

11 hours ago, Jaylam said:

It seems to meet many of the criteria for a pedigree; books purchased by off the rack new (or in this case before they even hit the rack) by one collector at one location over a specified period of time and kept and stored in super high grade condition for many years.  How that is not considered a bonafide pedigree is beyond me.

It lacks breadth and scarcity requirements.

With that said, as a collector I'm glad to be able to buy books with a provenance that they're from a cool collection.  Personally, I don't think it's all hype for sellers to provide the provenance of especially nice original owner collections being brought to market for the first time, and appreciate the provenance.

While I'm not familiar with this particular collection, it sounds very similar to another one brought to market about 8-10 years ago, the Hollywood Hills collection.  It only had Marvel comics published from 1965-'68, and so fell far short of meriting pedigree status.  But the books were beautiful, with great structural grades, mostly white pages, and white cover stock front and back.  The collection was so nice that I actively looked for additional issues from it to buy after the collection was dispersed in the secondary market.

This was a Hollywood Hills comic I used to own - the others looked pretty much as great as this one, so you can see why collectors of high grade SA Marvels might want to seek out books from the collection, even if it didn't merit being declared a pedigree:

Edited November 3, 2019 by namisgr

[MasterChief]

On 11/2/2019 at 7:33 AM, Mercury Man said:

On 11/1/2019 at 9:47 AM, MasterChief said:

"these books remained un-touched"

What does that even mean.  How can they even claim that?  Seems like a silly way to say-  "these are really nice copies", but with an over the top dramatic flair. 

It's all carnival barker speak offered to collectors who love a story. The vagueness of the 'collection' story is intentional, IMO. I can understand to a certain point in keeping the original owners name undisclosed but that description begs so many other questions I don't know where to begin.

Darin Adams (Pristine Comics) is the same dealer who sold the CGC 9.0 "cedar chest" Action Comics #1 in 2014 for $3.2M. Great story behind that book too. But in the end, it was BS. The sale of the book even attracted major news organizations who reported on it. One such newspaper was the Washington Post. Their crack reporter basically regurgitated the marketing fairytale and issued a puff piece. The real story of the book was actually being discussed here on the boards where it was revealed to be a recycled CGC copy that started out as an 8.0 with glue on the cover, manipulated into an 8.5, and then eventually into a 9.0 by way of extensive dry cleaning.

For those interested, the WaPo article is below were the writer really "digs deep." It's followed by the board discussion with the real exclusive scoop.

Rare Superman book draws record $3.2 million top bid: The long, ‘cool’ journey of a record-setting comic

 

 

 

[MasterChief]

On 11/2/2019 at 11:47 AM, slym2none said:

Had the OP shared his pics, we would have seen that much earlier. After I asked the second time in this thread, they PM'd me pics with the caveat that I was not allowed to share them, so I just deleted the conversation. IDK what they are trying to hide, as the pics seemed innocuous enough, but I thought people should know that.

That's odd. What's with all the secrecy, anyway? Certification is meant to be verified to confirm a book's description in CGC's database and prove the holder is genuine and not tampered with. 

[MasterChief]

On 11/3/2019 at 1:02 PM, namisgr said:

While I'm not familiar with this particular collection, it sounds very similar to another one brought to market about 8-10 years ago, the Hollywood Hills collection.  It only had Marvel comics published from 1965-'68, and so fell far short of meriting pedigree status.  But the books were beautiful, with great structural grades, mostly white pages, and white cover stock front and back.  The collection was so nice that I actively looked for additional issues from it to buy after the collection was dispersed in the secondary market.

This was a Hollywood Hills comic I used to own - the others looked pretty much as great as this one, so you can see why collectors of high grade SA Marvels might want to seek out books from the collection, even if it didn't merit being declared a pedigree:

I remember that collection well, Bob. Brought to market by Mark Zaid and Jammie Newbold (Southern California Comics). Lots of great books. Wanted to pull the trigger on a few but by the time I got around to it they were gone. The back story is below. One of which I don't suspect as being just a yarn to sell books.

Hollywood Hills Collection
http://www.esquirecomics.com/index.php?page=pedigree&pedigree=173

Forty years ago, from late 1965 to early 1968, a young collector would purchase multiple copies of each issue of such titles as Amazing Spider-Man, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, Tales of Suspense and X-Men. One copy would be read, and the others would be meticulously placed away for safe-keeping. Ultimately approximately 1,000 books were amassed, of which nearly 400 have been acquired by EsquireComics.com and Southern California Comics (about half of those have been CGC certified and the remaining books were retained by the owner's son for sale on eBay). The majority of the books fall within the 9.2 - 9.6 range, and often have pure white pages.

Although this collection is designated a "pedigree" on my site, it is just a "collection". In order to key the collection my website only recognizes "pedigree" designations. None of the books are marked or come with a certificate of authenticity, nor has the history of the collection impacted the prices.

[Abibliophobia]

On 11/2/2019 at 2:47 PM, slym2none said:

Had the OP shared his pics, we would have seen that much earlier. After I asked the second time in this thread, they PM'd me pics with the caveat that I was not allowed to share them, so I just deleted the conversation. IDK what they are trying to hide, as the pics seemed innocuous enough, but I thought people should know that.



-slym

Slym, I shared with you because you’ve got a lot of apparent history on the boards and thought you’d provide some insight and i was willing to provide some proof. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m just tying to learn what separates a “collection“ from a “Collection” from people more knowledgeable than me.

I don’t like the idea of sharing pics with the serials and grades on my personal collection in a public forum, in general.  It seems like risky behavior to me.  I can’t be the only one who feels this way.

Separately, I’m not sure why you’d think I was trying to hide anything other than the obvious.  It makes me feel as though you’re thinking I was trying to deceive the readership.  Haha.

Anyway, no harm done.  Thanks to those who are helping to explain.

 

 

[Abibliophobia]

5 hours ago, MasterChief said:

That's odd. What's with all the secrecy, anyway? Certification is meant to be verified to confirm a book's description in CGC's database and prove the holder is genuine and not tampered with. 

No secrecy beyond what I’ve already stated.   The numbers are legit.

Thank you for taking the time to give your opinion about Pedigree Comics. It satisfies my instincts about whether the provenance story is true or just clever marketing. Regardless, the book is top shelf (albeit probably won’t exceed four figures in value during my lifetime—just a solid silver age Marvel), I’ll keep the COA with it, but I’m not expecting it to come of much.

[Abibliophobia]

On 11/2/2019 at 10:57 PM, lou_fine said:

 

I don't understand why it would not be relevant, especially in terms of the 5-year time period.  

Sorry. I meant the specifics of the book aren’t really relevant as to whether this collection is significant or would ever deserve a pedigree.

Selfishly, it would be convenient for me for CGC to recognize it as either so that the distinction was on the CGC label rather than a separate COA in the event that I wanted to get the book reholdered in the future.  If it was recognized it would then say so on the label and thus the COA is largely unnecessary.

On 11/2/2019 at 10:57 PM, lou_fine said:

For example, if it was the 5-year time period of 1936 to 1941 then it would most definitely qualify for full pedigree status.  Now that we know from Masterchief that it is from only the much more common and abundant 5-year time period of 1966-71 when comic book collecting was already in place, it's rather obvious why this particular collection was not given pedigree status.  Any COA's for books from this time period is really geared more towards marketing hype in hopes of maximizing dollars upon sale, as opposed to anything resembling a true pedigree worthy book.  

My suspicions as well. Thank you for time and reaffirming.