Rune

Just added three more books from the CLink auction to the library: I hope the winner is happy about getting #3 for such a low price, especially because it is a perfectly centered book with great colors. Did consider dumping 1.5k on it, but decided not to - I already have 3 copies and thought I do not need more (and I do like an OW pedigree book more than a non-pedigree WP book)...

Just found and ordered this book, highest graded and 1 of just 4 books Now if only there was a way to get the #10 and Annual #1 9.8 magazines, sigh... Then I could also get back the Barbarian Throne I lost this year - well, it was fun the 3 years it lasted, and I still have the memories Did start with only the Savage Tales magazines featuring Conan, but then expanded to include Ka-Zar.

I think I know that feeling, a profound sense of anxiety when young kids are running around your statues and other collectibles Still my 3-year-old son has not yet damaged anything, but I do not trust him to be alone with my statues and books You also have an amazing collection, congrats! Maybe I should show your photos to my wife so that she can see, I'm not the only person to own a few comic book collectibles (and related nice stuff)

Thanks, Oakman29 and Vaillant It is quite big compared to the magazine (see below) - now I got to finish my Savage Tales CGC collection, but these high grade magazines are hard to find...

Sharing & caring - love to pass on the "fear-the-light-and-treat-your-art-like-vampires"-disease Much easier with books, I think my CGC books get less than 50 lx h per year (but I have a few books where previous owners seem to have daylight-torched a lot of ink ) Now I wonder, is it really better to burn out than to fade away (sorry, bad joke )

Amazing photo AdamStrange encouraged me to post the info below in a new thread, but maybe it's nice to have here - I have posted it twice before, and if all have read it, I'd be happy to delete this post from the thread. The post is about how benefits of anti-UV protection may be exaggerated and provide a false sense of protection: I can see that "Museum Glass" is now a registered trademark of Tru Vue; I believe a common understanding of museum glass is that it's just glass with UV protection and high clarity (reduced reflections) used by museums. And then there's this experiment, although I do not like the exposure to direct sunlight - it may illustrate that visible light in extreme amounts may cause severe damage that any UV protection can't prevent: http://www.ukiyoe-gallery.com/sunfade.htm Results seem to have been reproduced here: https://ellencarrlee.wordpress.com/tag/uv-filter/ So UV protection may be a high-priced joke when it comes to preventing fading Still, just found this - maybe some truth to that... "To reduce the fading of collections due to display lighting, especially the most rapid fading, there is only one option: reduce light exposure. Many museums, private donors, and their framers have assumed that the primary cause of fading is UV, and that a good UV filter would prevent their collections from fading. Some advertisements for UV filters imply the same. For colours that are sensitive to light — the crux of the museum lighting dilemma — UV usually contributes less than half of the fading and often only one tenth; therefore, it does not allow one to think any differently about reducing light exposure. (The exposure scales in the centre of Table 3 quantify this phenomenon.) Why bother, then, with UV control? Because for many artifacts, such as paintings with permanent pigments or monochromatic prints and drawings, the yellowing and disintegration of the media and support by UV is the major form of deterioration suffered during uncontrolled museum lighting." https://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/resources-ressources/agentsofdeterioration-agentsdedeterioration/chap08-eng.aspx And: "Scientists found that blocking all of the ultraviolet radiation portion of the solar spectrum would not eliminate fade damage for most fabrics, but will slow down the rate of fading by a factor of about three. Because so many factors influence fading, finding the effect of one factor is extremely difficult. All parameters except the one being studied must be held constant for the duration of an experiment, which may run for months or even years of testing. That is why there is relatively little research in this area. To study the effect of radiation on fading, it is important to focus on one type of material while keeping the environment constant. Factors in the environment include chemical composition of the atmosphere, temperature, and humidity. The known exposure to radiation, including the known spectrum, and known dose (intensity X time) must be identified. Then there must be sufficient duration to observe the rate of color shift, or fading. There have been studies like this of the fading and other damage effects of solar radiation but no consensus has yet emerged on which portion of the solar spectrum is most responsible nor on what spectral weighting function is appropriate for assessing in a single “UV transmittance” figure the contribution of different solar UV wavelengths to the damage." It all translates to: expose your OA to as little light as possible This was fun reading: "There is nothing that does more to give conservators the reputation of kill-joys than the sight of one, with frown and luxmeter, patrolling a new exhibition the day before the opening, telling the technician that he must turn down the lights." And the not so fun but important part too: "Conservators need to understand light, because no one else is interested in the physics and psychology of exhibiting in a dim light. Architects are always trying to increase the brightness of indoor places, making vast atria with enough light to ensure exuberant growth of a miserably limited selection of exotic plants. It was not always so, as many dimly magnificent churches confirm." http://www.conservationphysics.org/fading/light_i.php I need a luxmeter! (I just love how this OA disease is developing and where it's taking me ) (Source: Wikipedia) Again, to repeat the take-home message: treat your art like vampires, and if you need to let them burn, do it as low and slow as possible (thumbs u (like 50 lux or less* - so cheap framing and low lux are probably a much better combo regarding preservation than expensive Museum/Conservation glass and high lux ) * "Many dyes, both old and new, are faded perceptibly by 50 years of exposure to 50 lux for eight hours a day. 50 lux is not safe illumination. It is a compromise between deterioration and visibility." (also from http://www.conservationphysics.org/fading/light_i.php ) PS. The info above is of course just as relevant when displaying (CGC) comic books

Maybe the first part of the headline sounded a bit wrong - but you'll soon get the idea First of all, all light exposure will - with time - fade your art, anti-UV glass protected or not. Light intensity is usually measured in lux ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux ) and these guidelines seem to represent opinions among professionals (conservators): "Most collection materials can be on exhibit for three to four months at 50 to 150 lux and show no fading. A level of 50 lux is similar to the lighting in a home living room in the evening. For comparison, standard office lighting is around 400 lux and direct sunlight measures 30,000 lux. Lower light levels are necessary for light-sensitive materials such as watercolors, photographs, leather, textiles, and prints. Materials without color (printed text, black and white photographs, carbon black ink manuscripts, etc.) can be exhibited at up to 150 lux. [...] If the light levels are to be higher than 50-150 lux, the length of time on exhibit needs to be decreased accordingly. When making the decision about time on exhibit and light levels, be aware that low light levels for extended periods of time cause as much damage as high light levels for short periods. We can measure the damage to materials in direct proportion to the light level multiplied by the time of exposure, measured in lux hours (lx h). For example, an object lit for 10 hours a day at 50 lux for 100 days would have a light dosage of 50,000 lx h. Ideally, light-sensitive materials would only have an annual exposure of 50,000 lx h, regardless of whether they will be displayed annually or not. When considering how much and how often an item is to be on display, always keep in mind that light damage is cumulative and irreversible." https://www.nedcc.org/free-resources/pre...om-light-damage So 50k lx hours a year (corresponding to exposing a piece to 50,000 lux for one hour) as a rule of thumb... In my living room this painting can get that amount of light in just 5 hours I just measured this: So that's about 10,000 lux in the living room on a sunny day. Fortunately it's not a painting I care much about - and it's an oil painting, so I do not consider light exposure a big problem with this piece. But what about the more light sensitive comic art? The living room gets much more sun, but the sun also hits the ground floor (high basement with reduced sun light), where some of my comic art is placed, here she is: I've already coated the windows with some film, and first measurement is with open blinds (oak, so light will not penetrate): And got these results next to the art (just an inexpensive luxmeter from EBay, but it seems to work perfectly): So 274 lux, and actually up to 600 lux with blinds completely removed (but with the transparent window film still on). I do have more windows in the room, but only this window provides direct sunlight. Now with semi-closed blinds - which still is providing a decent amount of daylight (I'd get problems with the wife otherwise, sigh): (As part of the balance of terror at home, my wife gets to decorate the window boards) The result (tried to angle the luxmeter to get the highest possible readings): Placing your art in the right room and maybe taking further steps to lower the light (lux) may be a great way to protect the art - and still be able to enjoy it every day. At least the above illustrates how to get from 10,000 lux to 30 - without creating a totally dark room. This info is just as important to persons, who like to display comic books, where covers may easily fade due to light exposure.

Lost the single highest graded 9.8 magazine a few years ago, sigh, my EBay snipe did not work But just got the original art cover to that magazine instead and maybe it'll take the pain away Magazine Original Art Painted Cover

Thank you Guess I'm just trying to follow Kennedy's words: "Ask not what Collectors' Society can do for you – ask what you can do for Collectors' Society" Starting a new thread would be triple posting, and maybe a good idea, but I better stick to double posting...

Wrote this post in another thread, but it took some time to write and it's probably better posted here - it's about how benefits of anti-UV protection may be exaggerated and provide a false sense of protection: I can see that "Museum Glass" is now a registered trademark of Tru Vue; I believe a common understanding of museum glass is that it's just glass with UV protection and high clarity (reduced reflections) used by museums. And then there's this experiment, although I do not like the exposure to direct sunlight - it may illustrate that visible light in extreme amounts may cause severe damage that any UV protection can't prevent: http://www.ukiyoe-gallery.com/sunfade.htm Results seem to have been reproduced here: https://ellencarrlee.wordpress.com/tag/uv-filter/ So UV protection may be a high-priced joke when it comes to preventing fading Still, just found this - maybe some truth to that... "To reduce the fading of collections due to display lighting, especially the most rapid fading, there is only one option: reduce light exposure. Many museums, private donors, and their framers have assumed that the primary cause of fading is UV, and that a good UV filter would prevent their collections from fading. Some advertisements for UV filters imply the same. For colours that are sensitive to light — the crux of the museum lighting dilemma — UV usually contributes less than half of the fading and often only one tenth; therefore, it does not allow one to think any differently about reducing light exposure. (The exposure scales in the centre of Table 3 quantify this phenomenon.) Why bother, then, with UV control? Because for many artifacts, such as paintings with permanent pigments or monochromatic prints and drawings, the yellowing and disintegration of the media and support by UV is the major form of deterioration suffered during uncontrolled museum lighting." https://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/resources-ressources/agentsofdeterioration-agentsdedeterioration/chap08-eng.aspx And: "Scientists found that blocking all of the ultraviolet radiation portion of the solar spectrum would not eliminate fade damage for most fabrics, but will slow down the rate of fading by a factor of about three. Because so many factors influence fading, finding the effect of one factor is extremely difficult. All parameters except the one being studied must be held constant for the duration of an experiment, which may run for months or even years of testing. That is why there is relatively little research in this area. To study the effect of radiation on fading, it is important to focus on one type of material while keeping the environment constant. Factors in the environment include chemical composition of the atmosphere, temperature, and humidity. The known exposure to radiation, including the known spectrum, and known dose (intensity X time) must be identified. Then there must be sufficient duration to observe the rate of color shift, or fading. There have been studies like this of the fading and other damage effects of solar radiation but no consensus has yet emerged on which portion of the solar spectrum is most responsible nor on what spectral weighting function is appropriate for assessing in a single “UV transmittance” figure the contribution of different solar UV wavelengths to the damage." It all translates to: expose your OA to as little light as possible This was fun reading: "There is nothing that does more to give conservators the reputation of kill-joys than the sight of one, with frown and luxmeter, patrolling a new exhibition the day before the opening, telling the technician that he must turn down the lights." And the not so fun but important part too: "Conservators need to understand light, because no one else is interested in the physics and psychology of exhibiting in a dim light. Architects are always trying to increase the brightness of indoor places, making vast atria with enough light to ensure exuberant growth of a miserably limited selection of exotic plants. It was not always so, as many dimly magnificent churches confirm." http://www.conservationphysics.org/fading/light_i.php I need a luxmeter! (I just love how this OA disease is developing and where it's taking me ) (Source: Wikipedia) Again, to repeat the take-home message: treat your art like vampires, and if you need to let them burn, do it as low and slow as possible (thumbs u (like 50 lux or less* - so cheap framing and low lux are probably a much better combo regarding preservation than expensive Museum/Conservation glass and high lux ) * "Many dyes, both old and new, are faded perceptibly by 50 years of exposure to 50 lux for eight hours a day. 50 lux is not safe illumination. It is a compromise between deterioration and visibility." (also from http://www.conservationphysics.org/fading/light_i.php ) PS. The info above is of course just as relevant when displaying (CGC) comic books

Thank you all It's my first painted cover, so I'm greatly looking forward to see it framed.

Just bought this one, the book contains Barry Smith's Ka-Zar story: "Back to the Savage Land", originally published in Astonishing Tales 3-5. So you could say that the cover is Ken Barr's tribute to that story (if someone should wonder about the story behind the cover :-)

You might be right - I did try to enhance the images: Still hard to get rid of the black shadow on the top image - now it nearly looks as if the exclamation point goes beyond the book, sigh :-) I guess two books printed in succession (or close) could explain the phenomenon, but all the other #1 books look different; in the old days it looks nearly like a book got its own fingerprint when being printed... Even the two Suscha News #18 books look identical, but one of them has a small ink stain...

The 38th copy of #1 just arrived, graded August 10 2015: Place your bids here (thumbs u http://www.comiclink.com/auctions/item.asp?back=%2Fauctions%2Fsearch%2Easp%3F_SORT%3DYES%26where%3Dsell%26title%3Dconan%26ItemType%3DCB%26f1%3DCondition%26ODire1%3DDESC%26f2%3D4%252C%2BIssueNumber%252C%2BVolumeNumber%26ODire2%3DASC%26f3%3DMaxBidX%26ODire3%3DDESC%23Item_1076291&id=1076291 Sigh, was more fun when I was a young collector and there were only 9 copies of #1 9.8

Amazing Batman #457 & 465 Breyfogle covers, congrats Just got the framed art back today, Museum Glass as usual, guess you could say it's back in black I'm a great fan of the Ra's al Ghul stories, including the more recent stories by Grant Morrison, art by Tony Daniel: Front: Published cover:

I'd like a word count instead Maybe a count of characters and numbers Some of us publish a book in each post, we're not being treated right!

Joe also sold me his Conan 14 and 18, a great help I would too like a Werewolf by Night set (maybe just the first 10 issues), but I'm starting from scratch, and these books are extremely hard to find in 9.8 (and on top of that I like pure WP and nice centering ). I think the amount of work finding and getting these books is simply too much trouble, for now, sigh...

Great post My story is somewhat similar. When I was 5 years old in 1978, my granddad picked up two books (he just found them, someone had lost them, he did not really care for such books), one Spider-man and one "Vampire #3" book (the latter including Werewolf by Night #3: The Mystery Of The Mad Monk! (1973); Marvel Spotlight #7 (Ghost Rider): Die, Die My Daughter (1972); and Amazing Adult Fantasy #13: The Unsuspecting (1962)). I was not the only child to read these books when visiting my grandparents, so being in the hands of kids for many years took its toll. Eventually I saved the Spidey book, even tried to trim it to make it look nice, I think I made a great job when I was 9 or 10 years old, when taping and trimming the book

Thank you BTW, there has been one thing I've been wondering about. It seems that two Conan #1 are quite similar - is it the same book? The first one is 0015782005, graded in 2000, scanned in 2011: And then there's 1108403001 from 2012: None of the other 36 Conan the Barbarian #1 books look identical to eachother, or maybe I'm just going blind Check the bottom staple, the cover orientation and alignment - of course different scanners have been used, so colors and shadows may differ.

Here's probably a chance to grab an inexpensive Conan #8 9.8: Get it here: http://www.comiclink.com/auctions/item.asp?back=%2Fauctions%2Fsearch%2Easp%3F_SORT%3DYES%26where%3Dsell%26title%3Dconan%26ItemType%3DCB%26f1%3DCondition%26ODire1%3DDESC%26f2%3D4%252C%2BIssueNumber%252C%2BVolumeNumber%26ODire2%3DASC%26f3%3DMaxBidX%26ODire3%3DDESC%23Item_1069958&id=1069958 Graded May 2015 and photo just added to the library (Yes, I know it's Qualified, but I leave no 9.8+ book behind! )

True, these calculations only focus on raw points to see how the mass of registered members is moving. Such calculations do not care for special or rare books - unless such books are awarded many points. And you can still enter the top 1 % with just one book registered - like Amazing Fantasy 9.4 Universal (Amazing Spider-man #1 Universal won't cut it though, unless you find a 10.0 (thumbs u ), Action Comics #1 8.5 Universal, Detective Comics #27 8.0 Universal, Superman #1 9.2 Universal, Batman #1 9.4 Univeral or Fantastic Four #1 9.8 Universal (which has not been found yet, if ever...)... Personally I was surprised to see that more than 75 % of all members have less than 9k points, and of course if you only collect modern books (or a few rare books that are not all 10.0) it may be very hard to get a lot of points. But thinking that all members in here have giant collections of old near-mint and famous superhero comic books may not quite be true, it only seems true for a very small minority. Maybe I should try to get another 4k of points to enter the top 5 % - or maybe do nothing; if we gain 500 more members the next year, it may automatically push me there

So what has changed during the last year? Here's an overview: "Points needed to be in [...]" refers to the minimum number of points needed to be part of a category Forgot to include the top 10 % - To fit in that category, today you need 38,091 points or more. The number of Registry members increased 11 % the last year making it slightly easier to reach for example the top 5 %, 25 % and 50 % (indicating that most new members did not register large collections). And it shows that the Registry is expanding. (If the Registry expands another 11 % the next year, then there will be about 5000 members.) Even though Cheetah lost a lot of Registry points the last year, it's probably not a trend of high end collections having reduced their Registry points, because today it requires more points to be among the top 1 % than last year (even though the number of members in the top 1 % high-end club also increased 11 % - from 41 to 46). As written in an earlier post, using average values are not a good idea due to the enormous difference between the lowest and highest amount of Registry points (nearly 3,000,000 to 1). For example, if we (as a thought experiment) include the two highest collections and set all other collections to just 1 point, we can calculate that the average member has a collection worth about 1200 points. So the largest collections introduce a severe bias to an average value, and using average values may be quite misleading. As shown 50 % of all members have less than 1500 points, and every 4th member has less than 250 points. Guess we could say that a normal (IQR) collection now has between 250 and 8300 points.

Not heating up - unless it sells http://www.ebay.com/itm/301688299559 Then I could ask 15k for my 9.8

Graded April 17 2015, this is probably the latest Conan the Barbarian #1 to be graded 9.8 - with nice pure WP: Get it here: http://www.comiclink.com/itemdetail.asp?back=%2Fsearch%2Easp%3F_SORT%3DYES%26where%3Dsell%26title%3Dconan%26ItemType%3DCB%26f1%3DLastUpdate%26ODire1%3DDESC%26f2%3D4%26ODire2%3DASC%26f3%3DIssueNumber%252C%2BVolumeNumber%26ODire3%3DASC&id=1068859

Looks great, interesting how it'll differ in size compared to Moore's version