Heritage Auction and Restored GA comics

[adamstrange]

I thought there was at least one recorded golden-age warehouse find, If you look back in an old price guide, the person that found it says Batman 1, 2, and 3 were three issues deep per copy. I think it was Comic Heaven that did it.

 

Not a very big warehouse. Sounds more like a closet-find.

 

The biggest non-publisher find that includes pre-SA comics that I'm aware of is the Circle 8 collection which includes lots of 50s returned books. There would have been more comics from it if the other barn hadn't burned down.

[adamstrange]

I'm most impressed by the lady who decided to invest in # 1's.......back around 1938! She missed the first batman apperance though.

 

I don't have my Gerber's handy, but I believe that is the "Denver" pedigree?

 

She was WAY ahead of her time.

 

The Windy City was a collection of #1s spanning quite a few years.

[otherworldsj33]

Point stands, and I would think that at least there would be more then one collecction like Church's, but regarding the population numbers and the odds of anyone else accumlating a collection like this, also consider the numbers don't reflect the poor, or the very young (who were unlikely to have much of a disposable income, or cooperative parents). They don't reflect the sick or the old. The numbers fail to reflect the negative attitudes of Americans toward reading and collecting comics back in those days. They also don't mention that many American's with discretionary income in the 40's and 50's had vivid memories of the depression, and were not going to "waste" money on comic books. Much more so then today, generations of families stayed and lived together, so less room in homes for comics. I don't belive Americans in those days had the fascination with hobbies or nostalgia like we do today, genrally speaking. There were probably a good percentage of immigrants, didn't we have a great wave in the zero's to the 20's? And I can't imagine many of them being too interested in collecting comics, even if they had the money. Transportation was tougher in many area's of the country, (espeically rural area's) where populations and good roads were sparce. I don't know the fiqueres, but I think it is a good bet Colorado, and other states in that region, that their population has grown faster then the country as a whole in the last 60 years. More so many of the northern regions in the winter. Also distribution was probably much more sporadic in some of those area's. Probably many young men (and woman) who served in WW ll and married shortly there after, had family and financial issues upper most in their mind. Like they say, different time, different world.

[goldust40]

thanx. never knew or forgot the origin of Metro's #1 Collection.

 

boy no good deed goes unpunished huh? Mark gave the guy the Guide and in return he shopped it to another dealer? I guess the guy didnt realize how scummy this business is to not see what an upright gesture that was by Mark to NOT just do a Chuckie on him. That kind of honesty should have been repaid with serious negotiation leading to a higher price, not cutting Mark out of the deal. Course I wasnt there so I dont know what else went on.

 

Why would you say "do a Chuckie on him"? Chuck brought the Churches a copy of the current Overstreet guide when he viewed the collection.

 

According to whom?

 

I've never seen anyone with first-hand knowledge of the situation say any different.

 

I also remember earlier last year that people were talking on the boards about some supposed lawsuit filed by the Church heirs against Chuck. You may remember it. Everyone on the boards "knew" about the lawsuit and several people actually talked about it as though it was a fact. But then we found out there never was any such lawsuit and that certain members of fandom had made up the entire thing to demonize Chuck.

 

Chuck may be an annoying, narcissistic self-promoter with high prices, but I don't think that makes him evil or necessarily means that he ripped off the Churches by hiding the value of the books from them.

 

I don't disagree with any of that, and in fact have nothing against Chuck R. whatsoever (apart from the aforementioned hubris, and his often absurd pricing). I've certainly never demonized him and have no desire to either. However none of that is relevant to the question.

 

The point is, who could possibly have had such first hand information, apart from Chuck and The Churches?

[FFB]

thanx. never knew or forgot the origin of Metro's #1 Collection.

 

boy no good deed goes unpunished huh? Mark gave the guy the Guide and in return he shopped it to another dealer? I guess the guy didnt realize how scummy this business is to not see what an upright gesture that was by Mark to NOT just do a Chuckie on him. That kind of honesty should have been repaid with serious negotiation leading to a higher price, not cutting Mark out of the deal. Course I wasnt there so I dont know what else went on.

 

Why would you say "do a Chuckie on him"? Chuck brought the Churches a copy of the current Overstreet guide when he viewed the collection.

 

According to whom?

 

I've never seen anyone with first-hand knowledge of the situation say any different.

 

I also remember earlier last year that people were talking on the boards about some supposed lawsuit filed by the Church heirs against Chuck. You may remember it. Everyone on the boards "knew" about the lawsuit and several people actually talked about it as though it was a fact. But then we found out there never was any such lawsuit and that certain members of fandom had made up the entire thing to demonize Chuck.

 

Chuck may be an annoying, narcissistic self-promoter with high prices, but I don't think that makes him evil or necessarily means that he ripped off the Churches by hiding the value of the books from them.

 

I don't disagree with any of that, and in fact have nothing against Chuck R. whatsoever (apart from the aforementioned hubris, and his often absurd pricing). I've certainly never demonized him and have no desire to either. However none of that is relevant to the question.

 

The point is, who could possibly have had such first hand information, apart from Chuck and The Churches?

 

No, my point was, why would Aman call it "do a Chuckie on him" in reference to a dealer who doesn't show an Overstreet guide to someone selling a book? I've never heard anyone close to the situation say he didn't, and Chuck specifically said that he did.

[LearnedHand]

So you're saying that a typical practice at NYC big shows (and probably elsewhere, like SD) throughout the 1960s-1970s, to have stacks of the same books, most in high grade (and many dealers having several such stacks of different books/titles from various publishers) can all be attributed to one warehouse find?

 

And over those 15 - 20 or so years, how did those books on all those tables at all those shows keep replenishing? From one warehouse find?

 

I'm no expert on the subject, but I don't find the single warehouse theory to be a credible explanation.

[LearnedHand]

You realise, of course, that "collecting" is a typical human tendency. And that lots of things in about the same price range as comic books were collected even during the Great Depression?

 

[General Comments]

 

Why is it okay to believe that stamps, newspapers, bubble gum cards, baseball cards, small toys, dolls, radio flyer sleds and wagons, paintings, magazines, etc., etc. from the pre-1900s through today have always been collected and preserved by many people, yet only a handful did this with comic books?

 

We know for a fact that comic books have been collected from day one as there are a few documented cases of typical people exercising typical human behavior, such as Edgar Church, Lamont Larson, Rockford guy, Cosmic Aeroplane guy, etc. Fast forward a few years after those guys - we also know there were others buying up ( = collecting) old comic books before it occurred to anyone that the books would some day be valuable - just ask Gary or Lane Carter, or consult the fanzines from the very early 1960s (comic books must have had quite a following by then in order to justify fanzines). Yet we prefer to ignore all this and, instead, conclude that people like Edgar Church had a twisted personality and that he was almost one-of-a-kind. I don't know for sure (no one else does either), but this conclusion is contrary common sense and seems illogical - even if so few - known - collections have surfaced.

[Timulty]

My point is, as time goes by, collections get dropped and trashed. And even if they didn't, then said collection had to have someone of curator/librarian mentaility to keep a deep collection preserved. The odds are not in favor, by a long shot, of there being another Edgar Church collection out there. The odds are in favor of certain runs of books, perhaps in the same condition but if they were single owner, the books would have had to run the resto gauntlet of the 60-70's. My belief is that next big find, aside from some freak of nature warehouse find of GA, will be such a run.

[FFB]

They also don't mention that many American's with discretionary income in the 40's and 50's had vivid memories of the depression, and were not going to "waste" money on comic books.

 

I don't know whether there's another Church collection out there or not (I'd bet not), but I completely disagree with the notion of Americans not wanting to waste money on comics during the 1940s because of the Depression. The birth of the superhero comic book happened after the Great Depression, and ten years after the start of the depression, comics were selling four and five million copies apiece. Comics never sold as well as they did during the late 1930s and through the 1940s. I tend to think that the current lack of numerous large collections of comics was the result of paper drives and mothers who threw them away, not because thrifty people didn't buy them.

 

During the 1950s, comics fell out of favor because people attributed juvenile delinquency to the crime and horror comics and the sales of all comics suffered as a result of the broad-brush negative treatment they got. I don't think the reticence of spending a dime on a comic book had anything to do with it though.

[tth2]

thanx. never knew or forgot the origin of Metro's #1 Collection.

 

boy no good deed goes unpunished huh? Mark gave the guy the Guide and in return he shopped it to another dealer? I guess the guy didnt realize how scummy this business is to not see what an upright gesture that was by Mark to NOT just do a Chuckie on him. That kind of honesty should have been repaid with serious negotiation leading to a higher price, not cutting Mark out of the deal. Course I wasnt there so I dont know what else went on.

 

Why would you say "do a Chuckie on him"? Chuck brought the Churches a copy of the current Overstreet guide when he viewed the collection.

 

According to whom?

 

I've never seen anyone with first-hand knowledge of the situation say any different.

 

I also remember earlier last year that people were talking on the boards about some supposed lawsuit filed by the Church heirs against Chuck. You may remember it. Everyone on the boards "knew" about the lawsuit and several people actually talked about it as though it was a fact. But then we found out there never was any such lawsuit and that certain members of fandom had made up the entire thing to demonize Chuck.

 

Chuck may be an annoying, narcissistic self-promoter with high prices, but I don't think that makes him evil or necessarily means that he ripped off the Churches by hiding the value of the books from them.

All perhaps true, but the fact that he might not be evil doesn`t mean his every word is gospel truth either, or should be represented as such. My suggestion would be that rather than simply stating as a fact that "Chuck brought the Churches a copy of the current Overstreet guide when he viewed the collection", you say something like "According to Chuck, he..." or "Chuck allegedly brought...".

[tth2]

I'm most impressed by the lady who decided to invest in # 1's.......back around 1938! She missed the first batman apperance though.

 

I don't have my Gerber's handy, but I believe that is the "Denver" pedigree?

 

She was WAY ahead of her time.

 

The Windy City was a collection of #1s spanning quite a few years.

You beat me to it! I didn`t have time yesterday to pull out my White Rose catalog and see which pedigree "specialized" in #1s. Interesting thing is that apparently this collection was put together in Pennsylvania, but was called Windy City because it was found by a Chicago dealer, our own Gary Colabuono (Moondog).

[Norrin_Radd]

I'm most impressed by the lady who decided to invest in # 1's.......back around 1938! She missed the first batman apperance though.

 

First Batman appearance was a #27 not a #1.

 

 

I don't have my Gerber's handy, but I believe that is the "Denver" pedigree?

 

She was WAY ahead of her time.

 

Don't you own any Greg Manning auction catalogs?

 

"DENVER - One of three pedigreed collections containing exclusively #1 issues, the collection was formed beginning in 1938 by a woman residing in Denver, Colorado. When she passed away, the collection was bought for $9,000 by a family in an auction of the woman's estate. The family subsequently contacted some national dealers and it was eventually sold intact. The collection totaled 151 #1 issues. Some of the big keys present included Marvel #1, Batman #1, and Captain America #1, and the overall grade was Near-Mint. The collection was broken up and quickly sold at 2x guide." - Greg Manning Spring 2000 catalog

[Thegoldenage]

There is no doubt in my mind that there have been several other very large Golden Age collections discovered over the years. I have tracked several collections including the "SN" "ACE" and "L". All of these identifiers show up regularly on Golden Age books. The ACE Collections seems to be made up of number 1 issues (Green Lantern 1, World's Best Comics), and I have seen many Comic Cavalcades with "SN" written on the covers. I have also spoken with first fandom members such as Lane Carter and Bob Beerbohm, and they all have stories of large collections surfacing and being quickly absorbed into the market without being documented. Lane Carter told me once that pallet loads of Golden Age comics used to be brought into the early San Diego Cons. I don't doubt that this occurred.

 

I agree with tth2 and others that the chances of another Edgar Church caliber collection surfacing are slim to none. I think however that the large Gold and early Silver collections are now in the hands of guys who collected in the 60's and 70's. Many of these collectors sold out years ago, but many others kept their collections. These collectors are not yet old enough to be selling out, but are getting close.

[adamstrange]

There is no doubt in my mind that there have been several other very large Golden Age collections discovered over the years. I have tracked several collections including the "SN" "ACE" and "L". All of these identifiers show up regularly on Golden Age books. The ACE Collections seems to be made up of number 1 issues (Green Lantern 1, World's Best Comics), and I have seen many Comic Cavalcades with "SN" written on the covers. I have also spoken with first fandom members such as Lane Carter and Bob Beerbohm, and they all have stories of large collections surfacing and being quickly absorbed into the market without being documented. Lane Carter told me once that pallet loads of Golden Age comics used to be brought into the early San Diego Cons. I don't doubt that this occurred.

 

I agree with tth2 and others that the chances of another Edgar Church caliber collection surfacing are slim to none. I think however that the large Gold and early Silver collections are now in the hands of guys who collected in the 60's and 70's. Many of these collectors sold out years ago, but many others kept their collections. These collectors are not yet old enough to be selling out, but are getting close.

 

SN is the Cookeville (sp?) collection found by Overstreet in Tennessee. A lot of the books weren't stored all that well.

[FFB]

thanx. never knew or forgot the origin of Metro's #1 Collection.

 

boy no good deed goes unpunished huh? Mark gave the guy the Guide and in return he shopped it to another dealer? I guess the guy didnt realize how scummy this business is to not see what an upright gesture that was by Mark to NOT just do a Chuckie on him. That kind of honesty should have been repaid with serious negotiation leading to a higher price, not cutting Mark out of the deal. Course I wasnt there so I dont know what else went on.

 

Why would you say "do a Chuckie on him"? Chuck brought the Churches a copy of the current Overstreet guide when he viewed the collection.

 

According to whom?

 

I've never seen anyone with first-hand knowledge of the situation say any different.

 

I also remember earlier last year that people were talking on the boards about some supposed lawsuit filed by the Church heirs against Chuck. You may remember it. Everyone on the boards "knew" about the lawsuit and several people actually talked about it as though it was a fact. But then we found out there never was any such lawsuit and that certain members of fandom had made up the entire thing to demonize Chuck.

 

Chuck may be an annoying, narcissistic self-promoter with high prices, but I don't think that makes him evil or necessarily means that he ripped off the Churches by hiding the value of the books from them.

All perhaps true, but the fact that he might not be evil doesn`t mean his every word is gospel truth either, or should be represented as such. My suggestion would be that rather than simply stating as a fact that "Chuck brought the Churches a copy of the current Overstreet guide when he viewed the collection", you say something like "According to Chuck, he..." or "Chuck allegedly brought...".

 

OK then, what disclaimer should someone like Aman use when saying "do a Chuckie" in reference to someone who doesn't bring a guide?

[LearnedHand]

I think the real question being discussed is "what's out there?"

 

I mean, despite my idealistic comments, I don't think anyone would bet heavily that another MH collection will materialize. I happen to think that there are several (if not more) 1,000 - 5,000 book GA collections still undiscovered - just like the Rockford collection that only came to the market in 1997 and the Vancouver collection that came to light even more recently. Neither of these collections were stored under optimum circumstances, but the Rockford boasts some of the highest graded books known to exist, and also boasts well over 1,000 books in the VF/NM or better range. True, the pages are often cream to off-white, but this doesn't diminish the significance of such a find. And the Vancouver collection overwhelmingly has extremely fresh books with white pages.

 

By the way, when I was still in grade school and my family moved from an apartment into the house in which I grew up (in NYC, circa 1976), the house had (among other things) stacks of newspapers (printed on cheaper-than-comic book pulp) from the mid 1930s through the late 1940s in both the attic and the basement. Today, those newspapers sit in the same stacks (just all moved for convenience to the basement). While the stacks in the attic have a different fragrance than the ones that sat in the basement, they all still have bone white paper, with the top-most newspapers having off-white paper. Mom and dad are not curators.

[Aman619]

I don't think the reticence of spending a dime

 

okay, heres a question I always have while too lazy to look it up so dont take this as a personal rebuke.

 

So many people use "reticent" to describe someone who is loathe to do something, or slow to act etc. But, I seem to remember that reticent means to "prefer to be silent, or not speak up" and the actual word, a soundalike too, that people really want is "hesitant". or actually in your sentence, NEITHER reticent or hesitant would be right. You refer to someone who (I think) is leery of spending, holdingv back from spending for uncertain reasons perhaps...

 

I ask you since you are a lawyer who uses words for a living.

 

Isnt retcent to do something just a malapropism that rolls off the tongue only because it "sounds" correct? I hear and read it all the time. It bugs me like reading "should of" ! help!

[FFB]

I don't think the reticence of spending a dime

 

okay, heres a question I always have while too lazy to look it up so dont take this as a personal rebuke.

 

So many people use "reticent" to describe someone who is loathe to do something, or slow to act etc. But, I seem to remember that reticent means to "prefer to be silent, or not speak up" and the actual word, a soundalike too, that people really want is "hesitant". or actually in your sentence, NEITHER reticent or hesitant would be right. You refer to someone who (I think) is leery of spending, holdingv back from spending for uncertain reasons perhaps...

 

I ask you since you are a lawyer who uses words for a living.

 

Isnt retcent to do something just a malapropism that rolls off the tongue only because it "sounds" correct? I hear and read it all the time. It bugs me like reading "should of" ! help!

 

It's one of those words that has different meanings in different contexts.

 

3 entries found for reticent.

ret·i·cent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rt-snt)

adj.

1. Inclined to keep one's thoughts, feelings, and personal affairs to oneself. See Synonyms at silent.

2. Restrained or reserved in style.

3. Reluctant; unwilling.

 

For what it's worth though, while we're being picky, I used the wrong preposition after reticence. I should have said "reticence toward," not "reticence of."

 

Next time people say I never admit that I'm wrong, please direct them to this post for a recent example. Thx.

[tth2]

OK then, what disclaimer should someone like Aman use when saying "do a Chuckie" in reference to someone who doesn't bring a guide?

First, I hold you to a higher standard than Aman.

 

Second, the disclaimer should say "..., something Chuck was alleged to have done according to comic book lore and legend."

[FFB]

OK then, what disclaimer should someone like Aman use when saying "do a Chuckie" in reference to someone who doesn't bring a guide?

First, I hold you to a higher standard than Aman.

Second, the disclaimer should say "..., something Chuck was alleged to have done according to comic book lore and legend."