lou_fine

Although it's not one of the 59 CGC pedigrees listed on that link, you can see it if you hit the "Browse by Pedigree" drop down box and then simply scroll down to Williamsport where you will see some sample copies of this "pedigree" that other collectors have uploaded.

I believe you are thinking of the Larson AA16. I just checked my copy of the Larson List and it was indeed the AA 16 with the coupon cut out from the centerfold and also notes water stain on the back cover, otherwise a VF copy. Wonder if it was Lamont himself who cut these coupons out as I was talking to Pat Kochanek down at one of the SD Con's and he mentioned that the More Fun 56 with the first Dr. Fate cover was an absolutely beautiful book, except that it had a coupon clipped out from one of the stories. According to the Larson List, at least it looks like it is from the Radio Squad story and not from either the Spectre or Dr. Fate stories, but still. Any idea how much this drops the value of a book since I believe GA books with clipped coupons would end up in one of those Green Qualified slabs?

Actually, if this was true wouldn't we expect that most of the early key Marvel SA first appearance books should have the highest graded copies coming from the more recent time periods if grading was becoming much looser as compared to the very early years. Especially with most collectors being Marvel collectors and who would end up submitting these keys for grading due simply to their high demand and subsequent huge value in the marketplace. And yet pretty much nada after some 2 plus long decades. And yet rather surprisingly, but very interesting is that after some 22 years of grading now, virtually every single one of the highest graded copies of those key Marvel SA first appearance books were the ones that were graded pretty much right when CGC first opened their doors back in 2000. From the CGC census, it would appear that the only exceptions to this were CGC 9.8 graded copies of Daredevil 1 and Tales of Suspense 39 that were graded in the latter half of 2010 and 2016 respectively that finally surpassed the prior 9.6 highest graded copies of both these books which were slabbed when CGC first started up. If grading is indeed becoming looser in the more recent years, shouldn't we be seeing these early tightly highest graded copies be resubmitted back in for potentially even higher grades. Somehow, I highly doubt we will see this happening after all these long years, but I guess only time will tell.

Will wonders never cease as I clearly remember holding each of the books up to the light at just the correct angle for that first submission to Greg Manning because I most certainly didn't want him to get my best books from both a value and condition POV since it was just geared as a first run test of the new CGC grading system back then for me in 2000. Since I had over a dozen of the File Copies from the late 30's and early 40's in my collection at the time and which I still do, I ended up picking out a few of them for this first submission (not the worse, but certainly also not the best) including a CGC 9.6 Crackajack Funnies 21 which I remember because it sold for what I thought was rather silly money at the time. Little did I know what would eventually come. Anyways, being a File Copy from not only the same time period, but also the same title, my bet is that my copy of Crackajack 21 which graded out as a CGC 9.6 copy at the time back then most likely had the same types of defects as this one here which we were discussing back on Page 241, especially since I kept the better ones for myself after I held them up to the light: Interesting to see the Graders Notes for this book as detailed below, courtesy of a fellow boardie since I don't have access to them: Grader Notes light finger bends front cover light wear all corners breaks color light wear right center of front cover breaks color light writing indent center of front cover As expected with a File Copy from the late 30's, all of the nasty fugly defects are right on the front cover and clearly visible and must be post production defects as evident from the assigned CGC 8.5 grade, while that "gorgeous" Promise Collection copy of Gangsters Can't Win 2 with the exact same equivalent 8.5 grade must have all been production related defects to be ignored upon grading. Boy, do I ever wish you are right that books are graded much looser nowadays as compared to before because that would mean all of those CGC 9.2's to 9.6's that I got on my first run would grade higher now. But I somehow highly doubt that as it is really based much more upon the specific defects on a book now and whether they can be monetized for Mother Corp or not.

For your reading pleasure, the story is right here from the Allentown thread which has now been resurrected here:

EXACTLY, as it's now (and has been for awhile) all about maximizing both the top and bottom lines for the CCG ownership group. Needless to say, it pretty much came at the expense of the old school grading standards with the additional revenue generating defects moving right to the top of CGC's hit parade chart when it came to their undisclosed grading standards. Totally agree, and especially when it comes to defects caused by bad pressing which they try their best not to see because they certainly wouldn't want to scare potential customers away from that huge pot of gold at the end of their rainbow.

No story per se relatively speaking, and yet I would still take the Allentown copy of the same book over all of the other pedigrees you listed, save possibly for the Edgar Church copy depending upon the 2 copies and their comparative grades.

Well, based upon some of the prices paid for the Promise books from some of these never heard of niche titles, I believe some of these winners might be losing a whole lot more than just their shirts and might even stand a good chance of getting themselves arrested for indecent exposure.

Are you saying that the FF1 and TTA 27 in CGC 9.0 and the TOS 57 in CGC 9.8 are the UKPV versions, because I got the impression they were just the regular cents version or else Heritage would have pointed this out in their email release?

To each their own, but if you don't see any value in a pedigree or a label, it's definitely good that you can side by side the books and use your own eyes and hands to see and determine for yourself which copy is the better copy.

So do I. To hold my Spawn 1. I remember picking up a couple of these back at one of the SD Con's back in the mid 90's or thereabouts, but never did end up using them. Pretty much just an earlier verison of the slab, but much more unwieldy, bulkier, and even less attractive than simply putting your books into mylar sleeves where the real beauty and colors of the books just shines right through.

Pooh pooh about the so-called key Marvels as they show up in virtually every single auction and are pretty much as common as dirt on the bottom of your shoes. So, tell us....................how much DID you pay for that copy of AS 8 in CGC 9.4?

Absolutely no surprise here as in this age of certification that most of the CGC generation of collectors/speculators would place the importance of the CGC label above everything else. I guess no surpise here, but being a longer term collector from long before CGC was even a thought in anybody's mind, I would tend to disagree to a certain extent here. Although I believe it's always a case of to each their own, but I feel that a pedigree will always be a pedigree, but this is definitely NOT the case with the certified grade of a book as history has clearly shown us that grades are easily changeable through gradeflation and artifical manipulation of the book itself. I will agree though that the concept of a comic book pedigree has certainly become more watered down with the addition of much lessor pedigrees like the Cookville, Eldon, Harold Curtis collections and the likes which seem to be more significant for their size, as opposed to the actual quality of their condition, as most books from these pedigrees are not in HG condition. Of course, we all know the real reason why they were added in by CGC as pedigrees. With the grading game being juiced up and in full play with the current grading regime in place right now, I actually feel that the significance of the old line major pedigrees such as the Church, Allentown, Tom Reilly, etc. have actually risen, especially in comparison to the first few years of CGC. Personally for myself, I know that I would definitely take a slightly lower graded Allentown pedigree book over a slightly higher graded non-pedigree book any day of the week, especially if that book had been "doctored up" from a lower grade in its prior life. After all, it's pretty tough to beat having an Allentown book in your collection, especially since it is only 1 out of a grand total of 135 possible books or the same with a nice Denver since it is only 1 out of a grand total of 153 possible books out there.

That's speaking more from a long term collector's POV like you and me who have been collecting for decades where time can indeed heal virtually all purchasing errors. Especially since we have no problem waiting because it's really more of a hobby for us than a need to make money on the venture. Unfortunately for Parrino, he was nothing more than a newbie from another collecting field who main interest was probably to dive in and try to make some fast money and had no interest in waiting the 10 to 15 long years that it might have taken for him to come up smelling like roses on his purchases. Are you sure it's safer right now when you consider some of the ridiculous prices that are being paid right now for the Promise Collection books. Now, if you think Smash Comics is silly stuff, at least I've heard of the title and it is a long running GA title. I certainly can't say the same thing about a large majority of the titles from the Promise Collection and I certainly hope the buyers have done up their wills properly because you just might have to wait for the heirs to cash out if the buyers hope to make a profit on some of those already long forgotten titles.

Ummmm..........................I believe both Jay Parrino and Gary Keller would be able to put up a good argument against your point here.

Do they still hand out strikes if a book is overpriced? I believe the best person to ask about this particular issue would be our dear friend here, @MrBedrock , since I believe he has had fond and unforgettable memories of prior enjoyable experiences with the Mods on this very subject matter here.

Come on guys.......................9.8's are so yesterday and just so common, but looks like Richard's starting on the right path here. You gotta be ahead of the crowd and go for 0.5 Brittle and Incomplete so that you can have the single lowest graded copies for all the entry level buyers paying insane monies for these books because that'll give you the highest ROI on your purchases. No, it's much better as the "He's So Fine" collection:

Definitely NOT as you are over generalizing since it's not a case of one size fits all. I believe you really need to read my post a bit more carefully or maybe I should have qualified it a bit more since it really depends on the kinds of defects which we are talking about, because it is quite clear to me that the undisclosed grading system under the current regime is starkly different than what it was when CGC first opened their doors. The additional revenue or money generating defects and we all know which ones we are talking about here are clearly being graded much tighter now while everything else on a comparative relative scale is being graded a lot looser. The reason why we think that grading is much looser now as compared to the old days is that the former types of defects are hard to see from just looking at scans while the latter with all of their clearly visual defects can be readily seen. As a result, grading would certainly appear to be looser now as compared to before if you are simply looking at scans, because it is always easy to see an obviously overgraded book, but pretty much impossible to see an undergraded book unless you actually have it in hand, or at least access to the Graders Notes. It's really a case of to each their own, but I guess I am the type of collector that simply prefers the old school grading more than where it SEEMS the current grading system is. As such, I prefer books that still has that natural full body feel and curve or bend to it, as opposed to the now seemingly technically superior flattened pancake look and feel to it. In addition, I guess tiny near invisible defects which I can't see from a scan but probably need a magnifying loupe to really see tends to bother me a lot less than books with more clearly visible defects and off-center covers. Although it might seem strange to most boardies here who tends to focus on the label, I personally would much rather have a lower graded book that presents nicely relative to its assigned CGC grade, as opposed to a technically higher graded book that doesn't appear quite as nice relative to its assigned CGC grade. To me, it's always really been much more about the "look" or appearance of the book, and as such, I don't really need a numerical label that's been determined by somebody else to tell me if the book is nice or not as I can simply use my own eyes to do that. Anyways, time to hit the sack, but will post a few scans tomorrow night since a picture is worth a thousand words sometimes.

It is. I sold it. Indeed, big congrats to our boy Roy here on this huge huge sale, but hold your horses here as congrats might be a bit premature here..................was this a public auction sale or just another one of those so-called "private wink wink nudge nudge" sales? Maybe we are going to have to call on our resident transaction verifier on theses boards here, namely our very own @Jaydogrules to vet this transaction for us here to see if it pases the mustard or not.

Oh, crappers.........WTF, now you tell us after all this. Now I am going to have to look for that bottle of glue to stick that darned "period" back onto the book that I just finished scraping off.

Well, I guess I was saying this because I thought that my copy of X-Men 1 which was pretty much a POS beater that would grade out no higher than a 1.0 Fair on a good day, and yet it looked a bit like that Hulk 1 which all of you are saying is in the 2.0 Good condition range when I thought 2.0 graded books looked more like this nicer presenting copy here: Well, since this is now 2022, I guess the old used books stores would all be up to speed and the storekeeper would immediately pull out their guide so that they can figure out what top of guide is they are going to charge you for this beautiful looking "mint" copy of Hulk 1. Sadly, no more of this 5 cents nickel stuff for old used comic books like the good old days.

Totally true and now I can cancel my doctor's appointment now that I've figure out why it's so painful every time I try to sit down on my big fat xxxx. Totally agree with you again, until they AREN'T as recent history has clearly shown us, their grades can be so easily manipulated and changed. Simply amazing as I must totally agree with you once again, but this won't be until it comes time for him or family members to sell and I certainly don't see this happening anytime soon and hence pretty much irrelevant at this point.

Now watch all of the Bat 1 holders take out their big eraser and and try to scrape away that horrible looking "valuation reducing" period.

Even so, my bet is that most collectors still don't know about this slight distinction, especially since even I can't remember off the top of my head if it was the period or no-period copy that is the rarer of the two, without first checking. But we all know that October comes before November. At least I hope so and if you don't, then there's really not that much I can do for you here.

Was this before or after our resident fellow boardie trillionaire, Mr. Tim Frommelt himself, arrived on the scene throwing bags of imaginery money around for the best of the best?