What's In a Name- Pedigrees

[jbcomicbox]

With the excitement created by the "Golden Age' Collection and the forthcoming book on pedigrees, I submit one man's observations which clearly are dated since i wrote it as part of an article for CBM back in 1995. It is just an opinion. Not saying I am correct or that anyone will agree.

 

Question? Has the advent of CGC "de-mystified" books such as Chuch copies? What I mean by that is assigning it a grade, just make it "another comicbook"- albeit, in most cases, high grade? Is it now the focus to possess an unrestored high grade book and the provenance be damned. Or do some books still have the mystique that "Oh, yeah I got that book and it is the ______ copy?" Church v. Detroit Trolley book in the same condition.

 

 

 

WHAT IS IN A NAME?

 

What is in a name? Well, in the world of comicbooks, quite a bit. Lately, the hobby has been inundated with a series of “names” assigned to a variety of accumulations of books. However, being a “name collection” and being recognized as a “pedigree” collection are, if you will, two different animals. The following are some personal thoughts on the issue of “pedigree” as it applies to golden age collections. I am sure that these thoughts will initiate some dissent and different opinions. However, perhaps this issue, as now raised by CBM (a long time ago, in a galaxy far away) , will serve as a catalyst by which some consensus may be reached by the hobby as to the meaning and significance of this label being applied to a group of comicbooks.

From my perspective, while a name collection may be discovered, a “pedigree” collection is a “name collection” that had been accepted by the collecting community as such. [ They are not 'declared' by CGC]

 

Generally, but not always, a premium is accorded a book from a pedigree collection over and above the price of a comparably graded “no-name” book. For instance, comicbooks from the Edgar Church/Mile High collection are invariably accorded a premium value no matter their grade, while such a distinction (until recently) is usually not accorded books from the Larson or other name collections. Some "names" do seem to conjure up a "mystique" and some do not.

 

As defined by the dictionary, “pedigree” refers to “lineage, ancestry... a known line of descent”. That has always been the “kick” about a name/pedigree collection- knowing that the book(s) can be traced back to one original owner/source. By this definition, any group of books with a traceable original owner/original source would technically be a “pedigree”. However, in my view, in the comicbook marketplace more is required.

 

Certain qualities seem to be required for pedigree status:

 

1. The books have an original owner or original source (such as a drugstore).

2. Consistent high grade condition for the majority of the books.

3. Unless all books are of exceptional quality, the collection should be “large”. This criteria is certainly required of silver age collections (such as the “White Mountain” collection), but is less critical to early golden age books.

4. The collection should contain a number of “key” or “important” books.

5. Although not critical to pedigree status, the books should have a unifying way to be identified, whether it be the date codes of the Church books, the “signature” of the Larson books, the name stamp on the San Francisco books or the “check marks” of the Cosmic Airplane/cartooning books. The wonderful collection of super high grade golden age number 1s discovered by Mark Wilson (dubbed “The Comstock Collection” by others) has a large date stamp on the back cover. [and the wonderful Rockford books] The Allentown, Denver, Sarno/Chicago [where o' where art you guys?] and Windy City books have no pervasive identifying marks.

6. There should be something “special” about the collection.

7. A “premium” is accorded the book based solely for the “honor” of possesing a book from this type of collection.

 

Simply, a true “pedigree collection” is a “name collection” for which a premium is paid over and above the market value of a similarly graded book. If a “premium” is made a requirement for a group of books to become a pedigree, very few collections will ultimately qualify.

Ultimately, a pedigree collection is not so much “declared” by its discoverer, as it is accepted by the hobby as such over time. Ultimate market value of a collection by name reference, and whether the books should be accorded a premium value, will be determined by their reception by the collecting community. This reception reflects a subjective judgement of the hobby that makes ownership of such a book “desireable”. A bit vague? Yes it is, but so is the line that converts a name collection into a pedigree.

It is significant to note that the multiple guide prices paid for books out of a “name” collection does not necessarily reflect a premium paid for the ancestry of the book so much as it reflects a premium paid for the superior condition of the book. Much of the “premium” paid for Church books represents the price paid for books of superior and unique condition. If a particular Church book generally defines the best condition for a particular golden age book, should the price paid for a Church book reflect the top pricing for that particular golden age book? In my view, paying two or three times guide for a book is a reflection of its value in that grade in the marketplace. With the Church books, the marketplace has accepted an additional 50-100% pure premium for the ancestry of the books. If this viewpoint is accurate, then the multiple Guide prices paid for San Francisco, Larson, Allentown or Chicago copies reflect “true value” in the marketplace for high grade books, not a “premium” for the pedigree. Only the Church books appear to command a true premium even in lower grades .

By these standards the Church collection is clearly a pedigree. So, too, probably is the Larson and San Francisco collections, although less compelling as one factors in the premium paid for any high grade golden age comicbook. While certainly prime “name collections” (by the “premium standard” articulated above), the Allentown, Denver, Chicago and Comstock collections may fail to be true “pedigree” collections. Certainly, although extensive, the Recil Macon collection fails to make the “grade” due to the lower condition of many of the books. The “Windy City” collection, although extensive, has a negative reputation due to the variable page quality of many of the books. (I know one dealer who would not identify a book as a “Windy City” copy because of the negative connotations of the collection. Whether warranted or not, it is unfortunate to “lose” the lineage of any book from a name collection.) Of course, if one eliminates the “premium” requirement to be classified as a pedigree, then any “large” high grade group of significant golden age comicbooks could become a pedigree.

There is nothing magic about the above observations, but are simply one man’s view of the unanswerable question of what makes any particular group of books a "pedigree".

 

 

Jon Berk

[FFB]

I personally do not care one bit about whether a particular collection is a "pedigree" collection or not. In my opinion, any collection (no matter how big or small) that has unusual books in unusual condition should have its provenance catalogued and maintained. It is the history behind the books that interests me, not the semantical debate over whether an accumulation of books "deserves" to be called a "pedigree" collection, a "name" collection, or something else.

 

Does anyone really think that by maintaining the provenance of the Central Valley books, the specialness of the Edgar Church books is somehow lessened? I don't. I also don't think that just because a collection of unusual books does not equal the Church collection in breadth or quality, we should all ignore the provenance of the collection and just treat those books as "just some other books that came from somewhere."

[Moondog]

And the dealer who decided not to reveal a book as a Windy City is an i d i o t. The page quality is the page quality - whether it's a pedigree or not.

 

Faced with a buying decision - 2 copies of the same book in the same condition including PQ...everyone I know will select the pedigree every time.

 

Now, if a particular collection - pedigree or not - has a reputation for being restored, that's a different story (unless, of course, the books have been slabbed).

[bluechip]

Interesting points, Jon.

 

The proliferation of pedigrees raises a question, because it seems to diminish them somewhat. And whether or not something gets a pedigree designation is clearly subject to politics and individual financial agendas

 

You can have three books side by side in virtual identical condition with virtually identical amounts of pen markings on them.

 

Yet one book the markings might be called a "defect" while on another it's called a "value-adding identifuer" and on the third, "restoration."

 

The difference in value can be enormous -- and not because of what's on the book (pen marks) but what somebody proclaims them to be. The potential for abuse is unassailable, and I;'m not entirely sure how it can be avoided.

 

[FFB]

 

Interesting points, Jon.

 

The proliferation of pedigrees raises a question, because it seems to diminish them somewhat. And whether or not something gets a pedigree designation is clearly subject to politics and individual financial agendas

 

You can have three books side by side in virtual identical condition with virtually identical amounts of pen markings on them.

 

Yet one book the markings might be called a "defect" while on another it's called a "value-adding identifuer" and on the third, "restoration."

 

The difference in value can be enormous -- and not because of what's on the book (pen marks) but what somebody proclaims them to be. The potential for abuse is unassailable, and I;'m not entirely sure how it can be avoided.

[jbcomicbox]

I personally do not care one bit about whether a particular collection is a "pedigree" collection or not. In my opinion, any collection (no matter how big or small) that has unusual books in unusual condition should have its provenance catalogued and maintained. It is the history behind the books that interests me, not the semantical debate over whether an accumulation of books "deserves" to be called a "pedigree" collection, a "name" collection, or something else.

 

I do not disagree.....As i said: "Whether warranted or not, it is unfortunate to “lose” the lineage of any book from a name collection." The word "unsual" appeared twice in the reply. That may well be a defining criteria. Perhaps, when simply dealing with the group it came from is to use the world "provenace" - which is an unloaded, apolitical word.

 

However, there are books from certain "name collections" that give the collector a rush to own. Those books' demarcation is different and does matter to many in the hobby. I am a Larson addict. I will "down grade" books, at times, just to own the Larson. Also knowing the "story" behind the books makes them more alive and a kick to possess. Again each to there own, which is why the hobby is great (Although, at times, a dysfunctionally family, at best)

 

I get a charge out of knowing books had "flocked" together. While you are not interested in the semantical debate (a debate without resolution), I chaff at a third party annoiting books. Overall, these types of "namings" seem to have spun out of control.

 

However, in our hobby, this type of "no answer" discussion is grist why we all are the driven, addicts that we are.

 

jon

[bluechip]

 

Interesting points, Jon.

 

The proliferation of pedigrees raises a question, because it seems to diminish them somewhat. And whether or not something gets a pedigree designation is clearly subject to politics and individual financial agendas

 

You can have three books side by side in virtual identical condition with virtually identical amounts of pen markings on them.

 

Yet one book the markings might be called a "defect" while on another it's called a "value-adding identifuer" and on the third, "restoration."

 

The difference in value can be enormous -- and not because of what's on the book (pen marks) but what somebody proclaims them to be. The potential for abuse is unassailable, and I;'m not entirely sure how it can be avoided.

 

 

"Off topic"?

 

 

Isn't the topic about pedigree books and how they have identifying markks?

 

I'm especially confused when I read your post, in which you say it's the condition of the book which matters to you, not whether it's been designated a pedigree. Well, the pedigree designation has a lot to do with how a book's condition is graded, because marks that are defects on a non-pedigree may not be considered a defect on a pedigree. So there's a huge incentive to get books labelled a pedigree, and we've seen an explosion in pedigree collections lately

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jbcomicbox]

I personally do not care one bit about whether a particular collection is a "pedigree" collection or not. In my opinion, any collection (no matter how big or small) that has unusual books in unusual condition should have its provenance catalogued and maintained. It is the history behind the books that interests me, not the semantical debate over whether an accumulation of books "deserves" to be called a "pedigree" collection, a "name" collection, or something else.

 

I do not disagree.....As i said: "Whether warranted or not, it is unfortunate to “lose” the lineage of any book from a name collection." The word "unsual" appeared twice in the reply. That may well be a defining criteria. Perhaps, when simply dealing with the group it came from is to use the world "provenace" - which is an unloaded, apolitical word.

 

However, there are books from certain "name collections" that give the collector a rush to own. Those books' demarcation is different and does matter to many in the hobby. I am a Larson addict. I will "down grade" books, at times, just to own the Larson. Also knowing the "story" behind the books makes them more alive and a kick to possess. Again each to there own, which is why the hobby is great (Although, at times, a dysfunctionally family, at best)

 

I get a charge out of knowing books had "flocked" together. While you are not interested in the semantical debate (a debate without resolution), I chaff at a third party annoiting books. Overall, these types of "namings" seem to have spun out of control.

 

However, in our hobby, this type of "no answer" discussion is grist why we all are the driven, addicts that we are.

 

jon

[FFB]

I personally do not care one bit about whether a particular collection is a "pedigree" collection or not. In my opinion, any collection (no matter how big or small) that has unusual books in unusual condition should have its provenance catalogued and maintained. It is the history behind the books that interests me, not the semantical debate over whether an accumulation of books "deserves" to be called a "pedigree" collection, a "name" collection, or something else.

 

I do not disagree.....As i said: "Whether warranted or not, it is unfortunate to “lose” the lineage of any book from a name collection." The word "unsual" appeared twice in the reply. That may well be a defining criteria. Perhaps, when simply dealing with the group it came from is to use the world "provenace" - which is an unloaded, apolitical word.

 

However, there are books from certain "name collections" that give the collector a rush to own. Those books' demarcation is different and does matter to many in the hobby. I am a Larson addict. I will "down grade" books, at times, just to own the Larson. Also knowing the "story" behind the books makes them more alive and a kick to possess. Again each to there own, which is why the hobby is great (Although, at times, a dysfunctionally family, at best)

 

I get a charge out of knowing books had "flocked" together. While you are not interested in the semantical debate (a debate without resolution), I chaff at a third party annoiting books. Overall, these types of "namings" seem to have spun out of control.

 

However, in our hobby, this type of "no answer" discussion is grist why we all are the driven, addicts that we are.

 

jon

 

Jon,

 

Believe it or not, I get all of that. My point was that provenance of all unusual books in unusual condition should be maintained, and if people want to pay a premium for Larsons or Churches or Allentowns (regardless of whether they are the nicest copies), great. If there are named collections that do not draw premium prices, that's fine too. It doesn't harm the Church books or Larson books or Allentown books if that happens.

 

I have no problem with people debating which collections were the best, which books have better page quality or structure, or what have you. What I think is silly is when people waste time arguing about whether certain collections fit under the umbrella of a word ("pedigree") that was never clearly defined since it started being used.

[jbcomicbox]

 

Interesting points, Jon.

 

The proliferation of pedigrees raises a question, because it seems to diminish them somewhat. And whether or not something gets a pedigree designation is clearly subject to politics and individual financial agendas

 

You can have three books side by side in virtual identical condition with virtually identical amounts of pen markings on them.

 

Yet one book the markings might be called a "defect" while on another it's called a "value-adding identifuer" and on the third, "restoration."

 

The difference in value can be enormous -- and not because of what's on the book (pen marks) but what somebody proclaims them to be. The potential for abuse is unassailable, and I;'m not entirely sure how it can be avoided.

 

 

"Off topic"?

 

 

Isn't the topic about pedigree books and how they have identifying markks?

 

I'm especially confused when I read your post, in which you say it's the condition of the book which matters to you, not whether it's been designated a pedigree. Well, the pedigree designation has a lot to do with how a book's condition is graded, because marks that are defects on a non-pedigree may not be considered a defect on a pedigree. So there's a huge incentive to get books labelled a pedigree, and we've seen an explosion in pedigree collections lately

 

 

That is the "point". They are not "pedigrees", they are collections with names. The hype is to turn a book from a named collection to something more desireable. Look on the thread just started about a collectors first Mile High purchase where the poster said got my first church copy.....every collection should have one.

 

I agree that "large" or special GA finds should be chronicled if possible. Who knows maybe all the high grade Silver Streaks I collected over the years came from the same accumulation. We just will not know. Thats why i hope Matt, Steve or Wes can get an addendum from Zbang.

 

Its the history.

 

ffb and i are actually on the same page (or i may be now on the next page).....its the hype that gets me. No problem with the history of the collection. That makes for the legends which form a part of the hobby. Did Mark inventory all the Rockfords? What about the Comstocks or the Pennsylvania copies? I just want to know what was there and the story behind it.......

 

Crispen.....now that the story is out...it makes the whole scope and the books "more human". May not be the best, but at least now we know "the rest of the story"

 

jon