A Tale of Two Churches

[PedigreeMan]

My reasons for sharing the following are twofold: 1) To get the information out there; and 2) To see if any of the numerous experts here can assist in finding the truth.

 

To wit, Jungle #110, Edgar Church copy (?)

 

But then what, dear boardies, is this?

 

 

I'll let Stuart "nochips" DeGraff tell the story of how he obtained the book. It's quite an interesting one.

 

West "Timely" Stephan has given his opinion via the scans, and "adamstrange" has given his after seeing and handling the book in person. I'll let them decide if they would like to publicly state these conclusions.

 

Alan

[rjpb]

Has Metro indicated why they think it might be theirs might be the Church copy, and was that speculation made previous to it being slabbed?

[Mephisto]

Maybe Metro made a mistake when inputting data? Doesn't say Mile High on the label...

[Mephisto]

Well looking at it again it says in caps MAY be the the Mile High copy. So in other words if you can trace the provenance of your book and they can't for that one then it seems pretty clear the answer to which book is which. Just becuase a GA book is the highest graded copy doesn't mean it's a Mile High.

[FlyingDonut]

Paging MrBedrock - he probably knows the answer on this one. I'd bet yours is the Mile High copy. And welcome back.

[esquirecomics]

Have you contacted Metro yet? I'd want their explanation of the provenance of their copy before opining.

 

This is, however, sadly reflective of a much larger issue/problem in our hobby.

[143ksk]

Welcome back, Alan

[TheWatcher]

Like 143ksk said, welcome back, Alan!

 

 

Angelo

[adamstrange]

I feel like I'm a witness in an important court case.

 

I saw Pedigreeman's book in person back in May and I was asked whether I thought it was the Church copy. I can't recollect my exact words as I was focusing on all those beautiful Salidas that he showed October and me and I've been dreaming ever since of the day he sells them to me. I make this point because it's probable that Pedigreeman actually remembers my remarks better than me as he paid close attention and asked follow-up questions.

 

I recall saying that I was certain that the copy was in the upper echelon of what one would find for Fiction House. That the gloss, suppleness, and smell appeared to be consistent with a Church copy but I also recall hedging a bit before making any definitive statements on provenance. It was not a copy where I could tell by the code or by the obvious appearance of the book that it was a Church copy -- in these types of cases I like to compare the book in a question to a number of Church copies from that same company from the same time period.

[PedigreeMan]

I've emailed Fishler about this, but he's being coy. It looks he did add the "MAY" qualifier since we corresponded, though.

 

Given CGC's privacy policy, I did not contact them as to why they didn't label it as the Church copy. I figured no information would be forthcoming.

 

Adam, if I remember correctly, you said you were about "70%" confident that it was a Church. But, like you say above, a comparison of it with other FH issues from that vintage would give a more definitive answer.

 

Alan

[ciorac]

I've emailed Fishler about this, but he's being coy. It looks he did add the "MAY" qualifier since we corresponded, though.

 

Given CGC's privacy policy, I did not contact them as to why they didn't label it as the Church copy. I figured no information would be forthcoming.

 

Adam, if I remember correctly, you said you were about "70%" confident that it was a Church. But, like you say above, a comparison of it with other FH issues from that vintage would give a more definitive answer.

 

Alan

 

Nice to see you posting again Alan! And thanks for the update email yesterday.

 

Bill

[adamstrange]

I've emailed Fishler about this, but he's being coy. It looks he did add the "MAY" qualifier since we corresponded, though.

 

Given CGC's privacy policy, I did not contact them as to why they didn't label it as the Church copy. I figured no information would be forthcoming.

 

Adam, if I remember correctly, you said you were about "70%" confident that it was a Church. But, like you say above, a comparison of it with other FH issues from that vintage would give a more definitive answer.

 

Alan

 

The 70% sounds right -- I knew I had given you a percentage but couldn't remember what it was.

[stagedoorjohnny]

Great to see you back and posting again, Alan. I think the new halfway point is somewhere around the O'Hare/Rosemont area.

[tth2]

First off, welcome back to Alan/PedigreeMan!

 

the gloss, suppleness, and smell appeared to be consistent with a Church copy

In light of the discussion in another thread regarding the non-Planets Fiction Houses that were left to turn into brown pulp in the Houston heat and humidity, wouldn't this actually be an indication that this is NOT the Church copy?

[adamstrange]

First off, welcome back to Alan/PedigreeMan!

 

the gloss, suppleness, and smell appeared to be consistent with a Church copy

In light of the discussion in another thread regarding the non-Planets Fiction Houses that were left to turn into brown pulp in the Houston heat and humidity, wouldn't this actually be an indication that this is NOT the Church copy?

 

If you'll notice Richard didn't say ALL Fiction House books suffered the agony of the attic. I saw the books that Heritage had from McLaughlin's collection, for example, and they were as fresh as you would have expected Church copies to be.

[pennynike1]

I am suprised that there is so much discussion regarding this. If CGC doesn't recognize the book as a Church copy, then it is not the Church copy. No matter what Metro says.

[Detroit MIke]

My money is on your book. But, want an aggravating development indeed.

[adamstrange]

I am suprised that there is so much discussion regarding this. If CGC doesn't recognize the book as a Church copy, then it is not the Church copy. No matter what Metro says.

 

Not sure I see this being quite so simple.

 

If CGC doesn't record a book as being a Church copy it means that they do not have sufficient evidence according to their standards to make the notation. That is different from saying "it is not the Church copy".

 

Some people may only be comfortable with regarding books as Church copies if they have the imprimatur of CGC. Others may feel differently.

[tth2]

I am suprised that there is so much discussion regarding this. If CGC doesn't recognize the book as a Church copy, then it is not the Church copy. No matter what Metro says.

Your complete and unequivocal faith in CGC is like a timewarp back to the more innocent days of 2002.

 

It's very possible that no one ASKED CGC to certify the book as the Church copy. As we've seen on numerous occasions, CGC has not identified a book as coming from a pedigree if the submitter didn't bring that fact that to their attention, particularly on a book with no clear identifying marks. It's also possible that the submitter DID ask CGC to certify the book as the Church copy but CGC didn't feel there was sufficient evidence.

 

In either case, and it may very well turn out that Metro is wrong, I would not ascribe the same degree of infallibility to CGC that you do. CGC do a great job, but they have gotten it wrong on more than one occasion. Just ask the guy who started this thread.

[PedigreeMan]

In light of the discussion in another thread regarding the non-Planets Fiction Houses that were left to turn into brown pulp in the Houston heat and humidity, wouldn't this actually be an indication that this is NOT the Church copy?

 

The provenance makes it unlikely that it ever spent any time in Burrell Rowe's hands.