finally the return of the run collector 0

[marvelmaniac]

I do not know about completing runs of books from the 80's/90's and up as I do not collect those books.

The books I need to complete runs are Kid Colt Outlaw 1, 2, 12, 24, Rawhide Kid 1, 15, Journey Into Mystery most issues 1-30 and Strange Tales most issues 1-40.

These runs will never be filled since the prices of these books even in low grade has become absurd, but I am still hoping to "complete the runs".

[darkstar]

17 hours ago, lizards2 said:

The Dangling Donut's definition of Original Owner is that they were originally owned by someone.  And that seems to be most other peeps definition around here as well.

If Original Owner does not carry the implication of high grade, and I'm being pretty liberal with that range the farther back you go, then I don't understand why the distinction is being made. Every book that was ever sold was owned by someone. The use of Original Owner to me is attributed to someone who collected comics and took better care of them than most people did at the time, most likely because they just took good care of their stuff in general rather than having the idea that the comics would be worth something someday. 

[ADAMANTIUM]

8 minutes ago, darkstar said:

17 hours ago, lizards2 said:

The Dangling Donut's definition of Original Owner is that they were originally owned by someone.  And that seems to be most other peeps definition around here as well.

If Original Owner does not carry the implication of high grade, and I'm being pretty liberal with that range the farther back you go, then I don't understand why the distinction is being made. Every book that was ever sold was owned by someone. The use of Original Owner to me is attributed to someone who collected comics and took better care of them than most people did at the time, most likely because they just took good care of their stuff in general rather than having the idea that the comics would be worth something someday. 

I've always taken "original owner" to be used as a term for less possibility for restoration not condition.... maybe I'm out of context

 

[bc]

20 minutes ago, darkstar said:

If Original Owner does not carry the implication of high grade, and I'm being pretty liberal with that range the farther back you go, then I don't understand why the distinction is being made. Every book that was ever sold was owned by someone. The use of Original Owner to me is attributed to someone who collected comics and took better care of them than most people did at the time, most likely because they just took good care of their stuff in general rather than having the idea that the comics would be worth something someday. 

But that almost is the definition of a pedigree. 

I simply consider an OO collection one that is accumulated by a single individual that purchased them off the news stand/store as they were released by the publisher. Most OO collections are not pressed or restored, but if they are, it's likely suspected on them all. Typically, they have a commonality- whether its the publisher, character(s), age or theme. They usually have a common storage method, whether that's in a pile on a table in the basement or a peach crate in the attic. There may be records with it, such as an inventory, maybe a receipt or some notes.

I agree that all books were originally owned by someone, but the condition (and grade) is typically determined by the preservation method (or lack thereof).

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by bc
grammar failure #786

[FineCollector]

1 minute ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

I've always taken "original owner" to be used as a term for less possibility for restoration not condition.... maybe I'm out of context

 

That's my interpretation as well.

[justafan]

On 12/10/2018 at 4:47 PM, NoMan said:

was at a two day convention here in Los Angeles and the overwhelming buzz in the convention hall where collectors looking to complete runs. Yes, you heard me correct in that collectors were less interested in keys and wanted to complete runs and story arcs so as to read and admire the work of their favs . The dealers I spoke with were taken back a bit and were desperately cracking open slabs so collectors could buy and finish their runs AND read their books.

 

_{Then the dog woke me up, runny nose in my face. leash in his mouth, tail wagging eagerly in hopes I'd take him on a walk}. 

had me until you mentioned dealers cracking open slabs...

[lizards2]

4 hours ago, bc said:

But that almost is the definition of a pedigree. 

I simply consider an OO collection one that is accumulated by a single individual that purchased them off the news stand/store as they were released by the publisher. Most OO collections are not pressed or restored, but if they are, it's likely suspected on them all. Typically, they have a commonality- whether its the publisher, character(s), age or theme. They usually have a common storage method, whether that's in a pile on a table in the basement or a peach crate in the attic. There may be records with it, such as an inventory, maybe a receipt or some notes.

I agree that all books were originally owned by someone, but the condition (and grade) is typically determined by the preservation method (or lack thereof).

 

I consider an Original Owner collection to be just as you say, and just what it says - accumulated by a single individual that purchased them off the newsstand/comic store as they were released by the publisher.  And, the original owner is selling it.  Once someone else is selling it, they are not the original owner.

Edited December 13, 2018 by lizards2
greggy

[darkstar]

2 hours ago, bc said:

But that almost is the definition of a pedigree. 

 

The term pedigree is not well known outside of this forum, which would be most of the comic collecting world.

2 hours ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

I've always taken "original owner" to be used as a term for less possibility for restoration not condition.... maybe I'm out of context

 

Sure, but if the books aren't in good enough shape to be suspected of restoration then what is the point? 

[porcupine48]

On 12/11/2018 at 11:28 AM, FineCollector said:

I think it depends on how the collectors were taught.  If the local store stocks run issues, prices them fairly, and keeps the bins fresh and clean, people will appreciate them.  If all you care about is wall books, or you price like the pigs in Ottawa who want between $3.50 and $7 for run issues of 80s and 90's drek, people will say "runs are too expensive, I'll just buy the keys."  Venting.

We did have a recent comic-only con where they advertised pretty widely, and had a lot of novice collectors come in.  They were genuinely wowed by the selection, and I just hope the aforementioned pigs didnt scare them with their prices.  I'll either be helping out with Spreads' booth, or getting my own for the first time.  With that many new people, I intend to educate the peasants before they get scalped.

I was there!

I'll try and get in touch before the next one to say hello if you like.

[1Cool]

12 hours ago, lizards2 said:

I consider an Original Owner collection to be just as you say, and just what it says - accumulated by a single individual that purchased them off the newsstand/comic store as they were released by the publisher.  And, the original owner is selling it.  Once someone else is selling it, they are not the original owner.

That last part is a tough one in terms of holding that designation.  Most original owner collectors (especially Silver-Age or Golden Age) are very reluctant to sell and most do not have the desire to go thru the process of selling off their collection to the public.  I think it's ok to say a collection is original owner even if the person who is selling is not the original owner since they are basically just selling it for the original owner.  i personally don't like it when people say "comes from an original owner collection but I just bought them from dealer X who bought it from the owner".  I think once the collection is sold off in pieces then it loses the sparkle that the original owner designation gives it.  But I also think the original owner designation shows the books were stored away untouched for sometimes 30 years and they have that history to them.

[lizards2]

1 hour ago, 1Cool said:

14 hours ago, lizards2 said:

I consider an Original Owner collection to be just as you say, and just what it says - accumulated by a single individual that purchased them off the newsstand/comic store as they were released by the publisher.  And, the original owner is selling it.  Once someone else is selling it, they are not the original owner.

That last part is a tough one in terms of holding that designation.  Most original owner collectors (especially Silver-Age or Golden Age) are very reluctant to sell and most do not have the desire to go thru the process of selling off their collection to the public.  I think it's ok to say a collection is original owner even if the person who is selling is not the original owner since they are basically just selling it for the original owner.  i personally don't like it when people say "comes from an original owner collection but I just bought them from dealer X who bought it from the owner".  I think once the collection is sold off in pieces then it loses the sparkle that the original owner designation gives it.  But I also think the original owner designation shows the books were stored away untouched for sometimes 30 years and they have that history to them.

Good points, but it all comes down to seller hype.

Even pedigrees have been watered down, and it doesn't necessarily mean that books are of superior quality.

When it all comes down to it, for me, the books need to stand on their own, as far as grade, page quality, etc.

[Lazyboy]

10 minutes ago, lizards2 said:

Good points, but it all comes down to seller hype.

It is mostly marketing by the seller, but if a dealer buys a whole OO collection and offers it to the public, it's still accurate to call it an OO collection even though they aren't the OO.

17 hours ago, darkstar said:

If Original Owner does not carry the implication of high grade, and I'm being pretty liberal with that range the farther back you go, then I don't understand why the distinction is being made. Every book that was ever sold was owned by someone. The use of Original Owner to me is attributed to someone who collected comics and took better care of them than most people did at the time, most likely because they just took good care of their stuff in general rather than having the idea that the comics would be worth something someday. 

No. No. No.

An OO collection is comprised of issues that were acquired when they were new. That's it.

A Pedigree collection is an OO collection of unusually high quality.

[lizards2]

Just now, Lazyboy said:

 

A Pedigree collection is an OO collection of unusually high quality.

sometimes...., 

[letsgrumble]

I like this definition as well as the inclusion of characteristics typically found in original owner collections:

20 hours ago, bc said:

I simply consider an OO collection one that is accumulated by a single individual that purchased them off the news stand/store as they were released by the publisher. Most OO collections are not pressed or restored, but if they are, it's likely suspected on them all. Typically, they have a commonality- whether its the publisher, character(s), age or theme. They usually have a common storage method, whether that's in a pile on a table in the basement or a peach crate in the attic. There may be records with it, such as an inventory, maybe a receipt or some notes.

An original owner set of books, I would say, are those that have never been exchanged in the secondary market after it was originally purchased or obtained by a retailer or publisher. 

But wondering about this point...

3 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

No. No. No.

An OO collection is comprised of issues that were acquired when they were new. That's it.

A Pedigree collection is an OO collection of unusually high quality.

So, if you purchase older stock from a retailer, like say 1980s and 1990s books stored in a backroom since the day they were released, you would be the original owner despite the books being decades old.

And those legendary warehouse finds? Anyone who acquires books that way and incorporates them into their collection are the original owners too.

[Lazyboy]

3 minutes ago, letsgrumble said:

4 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

No. No. No.

An OO collection is comprised of issues that were acquired when they were new. That's it.

A Pedigree collection is an OO collection of unusually high quality.

So, if you purchase older stock from a retailer, like say 1980s and 1990s books stored in a backroom since the day they were released, you would be the original owner despite the books being decades old.

And those legendary warehouse finds? Anyone who acquires books that way and incorporates them into their collection are the original owners too.

WTF part of "new" do you not understand?

On a slightly related note, it could be argued that collections of Direct editions can't be OO, because the store actually owned them first.

[letsgrumble]

2 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

WTF part of "new" do you not understand?

On a slightly related note, it could be argued that collections of Direct editions can't be OO, because the store actually owned them first.

What's up with the rude reply?

Just contributing to the boards - I do that once in a while.

 

[darkstar]

9 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

It is mostly marketing by the seller, but if a dealer buys a whole OO collection and offers it to the public, it's still accurate to call it an OO collection even though they aren't the OO.

No. No. No.

An OO collection is comprised of issues that were acquired when they were new. That's it.

A Pedigree collection is an OO collection of unusually high quality.

 Your opinion means nothing to me. 

[Lazyboy]

1 minute ago, darkstar said:

 Your opinion means nothing to me. 

Your gibberish means nothing, period.

But the meaningless definition(s) you invented are precisely why dealers market collections as OO.

[marvelmaniac]

From CGC...

The collection must be original owner. This means that the books must have been bought off the newsstand as they came out.