High Grade Hoarding

[Aman619]

CBG had a brief description about the Mile High II collection and mentioned the 14,000 copies of CM #13.

 

can you post a link to that article? it seems it will clear up the question once and for all if Chuck actualy said that.

[Foolkiller]

I'm new to this forum, and my knowledge of many of the topics I've seen discussed on this board are informational and interesting. I've been reading through the thread concerning the Mile High Collection and I'm not sure why there's a perceived ethical problem with the purchase of the Edgar Church collection. I imagine that part of the reason is that Chuck's recount of the purchase is not entirely honest/accurate, which begs the question, what am i missing? I say that because if it were true that the executors of Church's estate were simply trying to unload a vast amount of perceived "junk" then how could Chuck be faulted for the offer he made? According to Chuck's version, there was a premium placed simply on removing the vast amounts of paper material from the house in its entirety. Should he have refused to purchase or given them money (he claims he did not have available) in the notion of fairness? I understand the point that Chuck basically "stole" these books, but I feel as if everyone here knows something I don't. I feel that there is a great deal to this story that I have not heard before, and I would like to know if anyone can help fill me in.

[joe_collector]

1) The account is not accurate, and paints the Church family as some comic-hating demons from Hell. Blatant attempt to gain sympathy for himself, as he has no ethical legs to stand on with this deal.

 

2) Many feel that in his role as a comic dealer, Chuck should have let the family know the value of this stash, as they called him in his role as a professional, and weren't just selling it to a guy off a street. I doubt Chuck could pull that kind of stunt today, or he'd be taken to court and lose.

 

3) On that note, the Churches did take Chuckie to court, and were obviously not pleased with the deal. This was awhile back, and although the judge ruled in Chuck's favor, the fact that they were "funny books" likely played heavily into it. If Chuck was a realtor and bought a $200,000 house from the Chuches for $2K, he would be in deep doodoo.

 

At the end of the day, we all have our own demons, our own regrets, and mistakes that we must live with. It's patently obvious that Chuck feels extremely guilty for his actions, feels the heat from the collector community for the MH sale, and is attempting to re-paint his version of MH history, with him garbed in shining chainmail, fighting valiantly against the evil Church demons.

 

It doesn't work for me, and I wish he'd just kept his mouth shut and let sleeping dogs lie.

[Foolkiller]

thanks,

that helps clear things up for me... I wish I knew more about the entire situation because I find the fact that the Churchs went the litigation route interesting. I hadn't even thought of Chuck as an "expert" in his field, and I think that it's correct that the fact that the items were collectibles and not real estate or something with more commonly held and regarded value is an important distinction that I imagine the court drew. However, I from my somewhat limited experience, I have heard these stories about Chuck, but sometimes it's hard to discern the truth when there's a hundred stories from a number of different dealers about what the "real" story is with the Church collection.

[mcd-migration]

I say that because if it were true that the executors of Church's estate were simply trying to unload a vast amount of perceived "junk" then how could Chuck be faulted for the offer he made?

 

 

I agree with you. It's difficult to apply todays standards to when the collection was bought. While comics were collectible at that time, they were not considered valuable to 99% of the public at large as the market was still in it's infancy. Yes, he got an unbelievable deal, but I don't doubt for a second that the family would have hired someone to throw that "trash" out if he hadn't purchased them. At the time, there were no publications pumping comics as good investments on a monthly bases.

On a similar note, last year I was contacted by a guy that had a 20" by 50" storage area that was stacked with comics 5" tall. Yeah, I was excited & he wanted my best offer. I ended up contacting a friend who was close by to go see what was in it. Turned out to be a warehouse full of unopened cases of hot 90's stuff, including the Valiant junk & other stuff. After talking to him & deciding it wasn't worth my time to rent a truck & make the drive back & forth he finally just told me I could have it if I would just get it out of his warehouse. Again I passed as I really didn't have a place to store it & couldn't see trying to sell 300 copies of Magnus 26, 300 copies of Wizard #45, etc. No, it's not comparable to what Mile High found, but it does show other peoples attitude toward comics. To most, especially back in the 1970s, comics were junk.

[fantastic_four]

Chuck claims that he tried to show the woman who contacted him a recent Overstreet price guide but that she wasn't interested in even looking at it as she was focused on getting the house cleared out to sell it. Not sure that anybody can confirm or deny that besides Chuck and whichever Church family member or representative talked to him.

 

Does anybody know if the lawsuit against Chuck really did happen? Aman? I mentioned this in the forums a few months ago because a local dealer related it to me, but I've not gotten any verification from anyone else that the story is real or just a rumor. When I mentioned it, I don't believe that anybody else here had any direct knowledge of the lawsuit.

[Foolkiller]

I'm curious about the whole Church collection mostly because of the incredible amount of profit turned over from it. I don't know if there are any civil attorneys on the board who might specialize in fraud suits (is that even the appropriate avenue?) but I can't imagine a suit being successful based on the available evidence that would be presented (i.e. testimony from Chuck and the members of the Church estate)... However, I was skeptical about Chuck's account because his claim in his version is that he never had any further contact with the Church family after his last trip to the house where he paid two to three times what some movie posters were worth... except he got sued by them later... so I guess he got "contacted" by the estate, right? In any business deal, I feel Chuck would be better off he simply defended his position by stating that it was a calculated business decision. Was the deal potentially fair? At the point of sale, it probably was. The part of the story that is at least partially probably true is that the entire reason for contacting a comic book dealer at all was to unload a large amount of "stuff" at once without having to pay someone for removal and possibly make some money in the process. If that is the motivation for the sale, Chuck would have had an obligation at that point (ethically, I'm not sure legally) to at least say, hey, I'm going to sell off this stuff, and I'm going to make a ton of money. He claims he did, I'm not so sure. His account his way too rosy, and paints him as some kind of hero or champion which should be immediately suspect to anyone who reads such an account.

[joe_collector]

I've heard the family (wife?) did go after him in court fom several reputable sources, but no having direct access to court documentation (and not wanting to waste my time on it) I'll just say I believe it happened, but won't go the extra mile to get the court papers.

 

I'm really about done with this Chuckie Returns movie, and wish we could all let it go. It's kind of like reliving the Valentine's Day Massacre.

[joe_collector]

>>Was the deal potentially fair? At the point of sale, it probably was.

 

Huh? Even then, those books were worth hundreds of thousands retail, so a $2K offer from a comic dealer (who knew the prices up-front) is fair in what way?

 

I actually re-read the TOTDB sections on the Church sale and it looks like passages have been changed. I may have to get the original pubs to see where, but I firmly remember Chuck writing that he was extremely worried about leaving the second part of the collection there over the week, and that other dealers would come sniffing around and offer a much higher price.

 

I may have missed that, but I don't remember this part from my original reading:

 

"My greatest fear was not that they would change their minds about the monetary terms of our agreement, but rather that they would simply decide to throw all the books away."

 

Anyone else remember this?

[murph0]

I didn't follow his story on the MH collection. But from the sound of it he seems to want us to believe he "saved the books" from destruction. Yeh, like the Church family is sitting there thinking to themselves..let's see this guy will give us 2k for it...OR..we could throw them away for 0 dollars.. mmmm

 

Brian

[joe_collector]

That's what irritates me the most, that Chuckie is sugar-coating the whole ordeal. I'm not perfect and have done things I regret, but I don't rewrite history to try and make myself look better.

 

I also appreciate candor, and if Chuck just came out and admitted:

 

"Hey, I was poor as dirt, saw a chance to make some serious cash at the expense of the Churches and took it."

 

it would sit a whole lot better with me. At least he'd be being upfront about it.

[clobberintime]

Fraud would be the appropriate avenue in court. The seller would claim that they were taken advantage of due to the buyer's greater knowledge and dealings in the material. However there would be a host of different factors the court would have to weigh to determine if fraud was committed - was the deal a fair price for such a lot under the circumstances? Did the seller refuse to look at a price guide?

[joe_collector]

That price guide thing is an obvious embellishment on Chuck's part. Anyone refusing to view market prices on their goods wouldn't be able to carry on a conversation, or be legally able to enact a contract.

 

And just ask yourself if a guy with $1K in the bank, living on the edge of poverty, would suddenly thrust an Overstreet in the Church's face, thereby outlining that these books are worth hundreds of thousands.

 

No way Jose. What did he expect to pay fair market rates (20-30% Overstreet) with, his good looks?

 

Do you think that the fact these were comic in the 1970's had something to do with a potential rulng in favor of Chuckie? Not many people understood collectibles valuation back then, and most adults would think of them as a "pile of funny books".

[Foolkiller]

Well, although fraud is apparently the proper body of law under which to sue, I'm guessing it would be difficult to show at the time of suit (about 25 years ago or so) because it would basically come down to credibility of the testimony that Chuck and the Churchs would give. I disagree that a leading factor that a judge would consider is that the items in question are just "funnybooks" even back in the 70s (of course, I don't know for a fact, because I was like 2 yrs old), so perhaps the tenor of most courts was to simply disregard collectibles. But any lawyer worth his salt would most likely analogize comic books to baseball cards in portraying whether the complainant was in fact fleeced. I would imagine it would require more than a showing from the Overstreet guide but rather involve an assessment of the fair market value (something much more difficult in 1970s than today probably for comic books) upon which they could be sold... (parade of experts in today's courtroom antics) and I imagine another factor is the projected value that is placed upon collectibles and the subjective nature of their perceived limited appeal as a collectible during the 1970s.

 

But to me this is all an ethical question, not a legal one... and I just wanted to know what the deal was. I think if it was true that the seller wanted to just get rid of the items (paper junk) and Chuck was willing to take it... and he made them somewhat aware of their value, then the deal as a business deal is fair. The outcome is not fair because we look back and say, "chuck should have offered more". He was going to make a ton of money. He didn't have the resources to pay a ton of money for the books, but keep in mind, according to him, the other dealer contacted passed on them. I imagine the Church estate did want the items out of the house, and were more desperate at the time to get them out, turn a profit and turn over the items. That's a circumstantial piece that changes the evaluation of the fairness of the deal. Chuck couldn't have paid more, so what should he have done... let the items be destroyed... or should he have insisted on brokering the items and not allow the churchs (and the alleged legacy of edgar church) to get the shaft?

[joe_collector]

All I can say is that although he didn't have the resources to make a fair offer, Chuck has had decades to make things right, and has done nothing. That speaks volumes.

 

'nuff said.

[Foolkiller]

very fair point.

[Lofwyr]

All I can say is that although he didn't have the resources to make a fair offer, Chuck has had decades to make things right, and has done nothing. That speaks volumes.

 

Just curious but what makes you come to this conclusion? Chuck's story sounds entirely plausible and at the time golden age comics was selling for $5-10 an issue and maybe $50-100 for some of the keys. Wasn't this in the mid to early 70's when comic collecting was rather fledgling? What we're seeing these days is a full maturation of comic collecting which is why graded prices have seem so inflated lately. Comics haven't had a long enough period to adjust like coin or stamp collecting. It's a bit unfair to criticize Chuck on how he "ripped" off the Churches collection when the valuation wasn't enormous to begin with. He treasured it from a collector's standpoint but monetarily it wasn't anywhere as gargatuan as it would be today if someone unearthed a golden age collection. The churches wanted him to take what he could so they could sell the house. He did just that..with their permission. It's not theft no matter how you view it.

[murph0]

Well it sounds like he made enough money off the collection itself to open 4 retail stores as well as a host of back issues. Sounds like he certainly didn't just make a couple bucks an issue

 

Brian

[Lofwyr]

Well it sounds like he made enough money off the collection itself to open 4 retail stores as well as a host of back issues. Sounds like he certainly didn't just make a couple bucks an issue

 

Actually by all accounts he profited little from the sales of those books. He sold quite a few at 1.5-2x guide which is a meager $20-40 each and maybe $200 each for some of the rare keys to help finance his operation. A lot of that was eaten up by micromanagement of his stores and operational costs. You can't think in year 2003 terms but what those books were worth in the '70s. He really unloaded a large portion for beans compared to what he could have gotten if he kept 50% of it in storage and decided to work a normal job for 20+ years. Imagine what he could have gotten now for all those early action comics, batman, detective, red raven, etc.. issues?

 

[Aman619]

ALso, the point of the litigation would be whether the buyer KNEW the tru value of the items and offerred peanuts anyway. Its not the seller who must know the value. When a seller calls in an expert to appraise a collection and offer to buy it, as an "expert" he must divulge the true value. When I say "must" I mean either Ethically. so that years later his peers dont accuse him of being a dirtbag; and Legally, as I understand there are now laws in many states protecting sellers in this same position.

 

As to values of comics being un-heralded in the 70s that seems true from far away now in 2003. But not entirely accurate. Years earlier, a wire story all across the country told of an Action #1 selling for the ridiculous price of (can you believe it?) $1200!!. Must have been a slow news day.

 

And, the existence of the Guide, already in its 8th Annual edition (this was 1978 right?) would be, I think, very admissable in a court of law as "expert" corroboration of the value of the Church collection. Values it can be easily proved Chuck was well aware, especially if in his defense he states the Churches didnt want to see it when offered. As appraiser, its his duty to alert the seller of the true value.

 

JC said it best here---Chuck's continuous defensiveness about this episode in his past is what sours him to us. If he'd have just told it like it was, it would be better. And way better than criticising the Church family now. If they knew they were being ripped off, dont you think theyd add afew choices beyong sell for peanuts and throwing it all away?

 

Think Al Sharpton as Chuck. Sharpton's political career is capped because he will not and cannot ever admit that the whole Tawauna Brawley episode was a stunt for media attention. And until he comes clean...he cant be taken seriously. Which is sort of Shakepearean in its tragedy for him...he has a lot to say the inequality of society and speaks well, but will never escape his past...errors of his own doing for personal gain.