A Tale of Two Churches

[PedigreeMan]

It's very possible that no one ASKED CGC to certify the book as the Church copy.

 

Fishler said that he did submit it as the Church copy.

 

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.

 

Troublemaker!

[MrBedrock]

In an instance like this, with the paper trail you have, and the fact that the Metropolis copy is not labeled, you should feel safe. Whether you want to have it slabbed or not, you should at least make CGC aware of it's existence. Then if any other copy is presented to them represented as the MH they will have something to work from. I don't know how they track those sorts of things, and maybe this thread is enough to bring it to their attention.

I had a similar situation with a Fiction House book that I sold. I could track the ownership of the book directly back to B. Rowe. I sold it to Bob Storms. When he submitted it, CGC informed him that there was already a copy certified as the MH in the possession of Metropolis. After much discussion, the copy Bob got was certified as the Church. I don't know what became of the other copy, Bob might. I have heard that CGC rectifies those situations somehow.

As for the later Fiction House books that were in Burrel's garage apartment and subsequently browned....I know of the following....

Ka'anga 1 on

Jumbo - most of the issues after around 110, but not complete. They were sold in runs of about twenty at different times. 140 on are in a collection here and are very brown.

Jungles - same kinda deal but the runs were not as complete.

There were some Fight issues under number 10 that were very brown. I never saw the later part of that run.

I don't remember seeing any Rangers. I think the run was sold early on, though some issues have popped up in a two different collections recently around town. those were white as can be!

I believe the Wings were sold as runs for the most part, and most individual issues I have seen are very nice, but there are sporadic issues that popped up later that are brown.

[pennynike1]

 

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

 

Pray tell what others those may be. Let me guess, the current owner of the book tyring to get more than they paid for it.

 

Seriously though. If one person has paper work to support that their book is the Mile High copy (such as is the case), and the other has a book already sent to CGC that was not deemed as the Mile High (such as is the case), then an equivocation that a book "May" be the Mile High is quite interesting, as the price is obviously going to be adjusted for the possibility of grabbing the Pedigree book.

[PedigreeMan]

Thanks, everyone, for the information. And thanks especially to Richie for giving us the first account of what happened to some of those Church books dissipated right after the find.

 

Continuing on with the subject of this thread: I've gathered some intel that the McLaughlin collection caused a lot of heartburn amongst some dealers / collectors because of duplicate Edgar Churches. Anyone have anything to publicly share about this ?

 

Alan

[stagedoorjohnny]

Continuing on with the subject of this thread: I've gathered some intel that the McLaughlin collection caused a lot of heartburn amongst some dealers / collectors because of duplicate Edgar Churches. Anyone have anything to publicly share about this ?

 

Are you saying Heritage may have "misdiagnosed" some of the raw, uncoded "Church copies" they auctioned off as part of this collection? Or is it the other way around and CGC didn't accurately identify the provenance from previously encapsulated books?

[PedigreeMan]

Continuing on with the subject of this thread: I've gathered some intel that the McLaughlin collection caused a lot of heartburn amongst some dealers / collectors because of duplicate Edgar Churches. Anyone have anything to publicly share about this ?

 

Are you saying Heritage may have "misdiagnosed" some of the raw, uncoded "Church copies" they auctioned off as part of this collection? Or is it the other way around and CGC didn't accurately identify the provenance from previously encapsulated books?

 

Possibly both, D. I know Heritage put out errata lists during the McLaughlin auctions, and I've also heard that some of the books identified as Churches already had copies slabbed and labeled as such by CGC.

 

I'm still trying to sort out if any definitive answers were ever discovered.

 

Alan

[lou_fine]

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.

 

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.

 

Yes, I would definitely not place 100% confidence in anybody (CGC included) when it comes to pedigree determination.

 

Unfortunately, I believe it would be extremely tough to convince CGC to change their mind once they have already designated a particular book to be a pedigree. This is totally understandable since it has a direct impact on their reputation.

 

Does anybody know of a particular situation where CGC has gone back and admitted an error on their part when it came to pedigree determination for a book? I remember one high-profile one from these boards involving a Larson Blue Ribbon #1 if my memory serves me right.

 

Actually, I am surprised there are not many more since pedigree determination must be a very tricky issue as many long-time purchasers just did not bother to traced the history of a book all the way back to the original owner.

[The Black Hand ®]

There are probably many cases of CGC mistakes that will never be discovered, especially with books that are locked away in collections.

[garthgantu]

And it certainly can't be helping that people are having identifying marks removed from pedigree books during cleaning/pressing/resubbing... over time, I could see someone keeping track of pedigreed books that have dropped out of the census for the express purpose of passing off raw fakes of same.

[esquirecomics]

Continuing on with the subject of this thread: I've gathered some intel that the McLaughlin collection caused a lot of heartburn amongst some dealers / collectors because of duplicate Edgar Churches. Anyone have anything to publicly share about this ?

 

Alan

 

Oh yes indeed.

 

So, Will the True Edgar Church/Mile High Copy PLEASE stand up: Clock is Ticking!

[esquirecomics]

Does anybody know of a particular situation where CGC has gone back and admitted an error on their part when it came to pedigree determination for a book? I remember one high-profile one from these boards involving a Larson Blue Ribbon #1 if my memory serves me right.

 

Unfortunately I was involved with that one too.

 

Larson puzzler- You be the Judge

 

There is also my More Fun #52 CGC 5.5 Rockford/Cage copy. It was previously graded as a CGC 6.5 restored copy. The restoration was removed and it was resubmitted. But the pedigree designation was conveniently left off by the submitter - deliberately (no doubt to disguise the prior history which was viewed as potentially stigmatizing). I purchased the book from dealer Steve Lauterbach. I resubmitted the book to CGC so that they could "restore" the lost pedigree designation, and they did.

[lou_fine]

There is also my More Fun #52 CGC 5.5 Rockford/Cage copy. It was previously graded as a CGC 6.5 restored copy. The restoration was removed and it was resubmitted. But the pedigree designation was conveniently left off by the submitter - deliberately (no doubt to disguise the prior history which was viewed as potentially stigmatizing). I purchased the book from dealer Steve Lauterbach. I resubmitted the book to CGC so that they could "restore" the lost pedigree designation, and they did.

 

Mark;

 

Any idea who the submitter was for this book when the restoration was removed?

 

Any chance that it might have been Lauterbach himself since I have heard nothing but bad news about this guy? His is one of the names that constantly seems to come up on these boards whenever the topic of manipulation and undisclosed restoration is brought up.

 

As a collector, there are some dealers that it's just safer to stay away from no matter how nice their books may appear to be.

[esquirecomics]

There is also my More Fun #52 CGC 5.5 Rockford/Cage copy. It was previously graded as a CGC 6.5 restored copy. The restoration was removed and it was resubmitted. But the pedigree designation was conveniently left off by the submitter - deliberately (no doubt to disguise the prior history which was viewed as potentially stigmatizing). I purchased the book from dealer Steve Lauterbach. I resubmitted the book to CGC so that they could "restore" the lost pedigree designation, and they did.

 

Mark;

 

Any idea who the submitter was for this book when the restoration was removed?

 

Any chance that it might have been Lauterbach himself since I have heard nothing but bad news about this guy? His is one of the names that constantly seems to come up on these boards whenever the topic of manipulation and undisclosed restoration is brought up.

 

As a collector, there are some dealers that it's just safer to stay away from no matter how nice their books may appear to be.

 

I don't know for sure whether he or a colleague of his was the submitter, but the story behind the book that Steve provided me once the history became clear did not jive when I investigated it. As far as I am concerned, he knew what had taken place and tried to intentionally hide it.

 

The irony is that by trying to hide the book's past he likely undersold the book. BTW, the truth was exposed (by Comic-Keys of all people as I recaIl) while I was in the process of negotiating for the book so I purchased it knowing the history.

[action1kid]

Very interesting..........

[action1kid]

Mark. I gotta tell ya, I really admire you. You consistantly dont pull any punches and tell it like it really is.Even at the possible detriment of your own books.

Happy fathers day my friend.

[PedigreeMan]

I wanted to give everyone a quick update on this:

 

I brought the book in question to the Chicago show last weekend and showed it to Mr. Bedrock. His immediate impression was that it probably was the Edgar Church copy, and a quick sniff of the pages a moment later essentially confirmed it for him. There were really no ifs, ands, or buts about it. If I'm wrong in this assessment, Richie, please correct me.

 

I'd also hoped to get Verzyl's opinion, but our paths didn't cross at the times when I had the book with me. Hopefully next year. Stay tuned!

 

Alan

[MrBedrock]

I thought it had a wonderful bouquet. That smell is pretty distinctive.

And it was a welcome change from all the sweaty comic geeks that were hanging around my table.

[G.A.tor]

I thought it had a wonderful bouquet. That smell is pretty distinctive.

And it was a welcome change from all the sweaty comic geeks that were hanging around my table.

[nearmint]

That's why I never go to Chicago...sweaty comic geeks.

 

At least in SD it's a dry heat.

[ciorac]

I wanted to give everyone a quick update on this:

 

I brought the book in question to the Chicago show last weekend and showed it to Mr. Bedrock. His immediate impression was that it probably was the Edgar Church copy, and a quick sniff of the pages a moment later essentially confirmed it for him. There were really no ifs, ands, or buts about it. If I'm wrong in this assessment, Richie, please correct me.

 

I'd also hoped to get Verzyl's opinion, but our paths didn't cross at the times when I had the book with me. Hopefully next year. Stay tuned!

 

Alan

 

Get Redbeard to sniff it, his nose has never been wrong about Church books.