sfcityduck

This brings to mind the quote of a famous Texan: “There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”

Sounds to me like CGC is the one at fault, not Verzyl. I guess the term "grade inflation" applies to more than just academics. The "inflation" of the Denver grade from 9.0 to 9.2 (post-press) to 9.4 might explain why the SF is being graded a 9.4 (in my mind generously). And if the scale used by CGC for CA 1 is so soft, then it seems that a much better book that looks two increments better than the "9.4s" (if that is what the Allentown is) deserves a 9.8 even if it really should be a 9.6 (and the 9.4s should be 9.2s).

Rob's site says the Denver is a 9.2. Census shows 1 9.4 universal and 1 9.4 restored. Is this book not on the census and the Denver was upgraded?

As for value, I'm not seeing where the bidder whose going to pay more than $1M for this comic is coming from. No Timely comic book has sold at auction for more than $350,000. Harriri, who has been driving the record comic prices recently, is a DC guy. Here's the UNIVERSAL census: 9.8 - 1 (Allentown) 9.4 - 1 (San Francisco) 9.2 - 2 9.0 - 1 The highest price paid for a CA 1 was $343,057.00 at ComicConnect in 2011. A 7.5 sold in 2018 on ComicConnect for $257,333.00. The only Marvel comics to top $500,000 are two copies of AF 15 (9.6 at $1.1M in 2011 and 9.4 at $704K in 2017). I would not bet that this comic will top $1M.

And here's my questions: (1) I sort of think its a generous 9.4 based on the heritage picture (left corners top and bottom, ), anyone else agree? (2) Would it benefit from a press? (top left corner, page misalignment)

Here's Gator's picure from the CA1 v. Bat1 thread:

The IPO share price for Apple back in 1980 was $22. Motley Fool says the split adjusted price of Apple at the time of the IPO is $.39 (not $2). It fell that low again in 1985 (but I think Dave bought the book before then). Which means for $25K you could have bought approximately 64,000 shares at the split adjusted price at the time of the IPO or in 1985 (the year Jobs left the company). For present value you multiply 64,000 shares by the current price of approximately $182 and you get about $11.6 million. Which is what Rob said up thread. You do NOT multiply the total shares by the splits because you are starting with a split adjusted price

I think you are improperly looking at both a split adjusted price and multiplying for the stock splits.

Dave buying the MH Action 1 was the equivalent of buying in an IPO. He got in before Action 1 popped completely out of the range for ordinary people. Over the course of almost 40 years he's seen an increase of over 300x in potential value. That's not going to happen over the next 40 years with Action 1. It's no longer at IPO stage, it's a blue chip. Which brings us to the old saw: Past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

No. But there is a 9.8 (Allentown).

I don't think GA or SA collectors accept ads and promo material as first appearances. Heck, even for BA collectors, IH 180 get short shrift and its an actual story appearance. But, I will say this: Action 251 is the best contender for a next issue ad as a first appearance.

Yep, to be clear for the OP, that's Chuck sitting behind stacks of MH comics including the Superman 1 and Batman 1. I would not be shocked if he had a similar picture sitting behind an Action 1 and D27.

None that have ever been circulated. I think Chuck claimed to have one. He very well might, based on this evidence:

He has a Superman 1.

RIP Grumpy.

Is DareDevil 164 "Bronze"? If so, don't know why it has not been mentioned yet. One of the most visually great stories ever. A truly fantastic origin re-telling. Complete with Krigstein homages:

I was thinking that pay copy of silver streak 1 had writing on the cover. I thought that was LJ, but maybe no writing?

The CGC label says “office mock-up copy.” IMHO that’s exactly the right way to handle these type of hand assembled items (including ashcans) - put a note. Not saying must on newsstand to be a comic. Just saying MC 1 normal editions were newsstand comics, and this hand assembled item is something else like a production mock-up or ashcan. It is not a copy of the normal newsstand editions of mc 1,

We should all agree this thing is not a newsstand comic. It is either a production mock up, ashcan, an unknown type of production artifact, or (worst case) a frankenbook (which apparently not the case). But it is not a newsstand comic. Regardless of the grading company I would prefer the label to state that qualifier. And, more importantly I would like the grading companies to be consistent! If this type of thing is worthy of a holder (and based on amf 2/3 example both leading grading cos think it is), THEN ASHCANS WITH EQUALLY GOOD OR BETTER PROVENANCE ALSO DESERVE HOLDERS. Universal holders are fine by me for hand assembled items if they just note that on the label and make clear (unlike with this mc 1 artifact) that it is not a normal newsstand edition of MC 1. Anyone really disagree?

Aren’t there other “pay copies” for other publishers with notations? I thought Zaid or someone else had one.

Metro says: "Proof cover cut band attached to interior by Lloyd Jacquet. Interior covers are blank." I would interpret "cut band" to imply that there's a back cover, and based on that statement I now agree with Badger that the front and back are all one piece (but with weird ink loss on spine).

You know, I actually agree with RMA to the extent that if the artist did not make receiving a subsequent percentage of a re-sale a term of the original transaction wherein the art was sold, they have no right, legal or moral, to seek a percentage down the road. To the contrary, I think sound public policy dictates that the original transaction remain undisturbed. Artists like BWS are clearly now exploring arrangements to try to benefit from increases in the value of art they have sold. That's is their right. But, going back and re-doing the past? That would create chaos, is contrary to a firmly established legal framework, and would be unfair to the good faith purchasers who made a deal with the artist that they expect to be honored. It gets even crazier as you go further down the line in a chain of purchasers when the art is sold from hand to hand in the open market.

As I said above, "All business transactions are, by definition, greedy and selfish. Sellers generally want the highest price they can get, and buyers generally want the lowest price they can get. Both act out of self-interest." Are you now agreeing with me? My point is not that an artist who wants to negotiate a deal whereby they retain the right to a percentage of a re-sale is acting altruistically, they are not. They are acting selfishly. My point is that is the norm in our capitalist comic collectable economy, and there's nothing "morally" wrong with that. You seem to have a much more radical view of comic collecting economics than me (at least based on your attempt to analogise a two party negotiation over the purchase of a collectable of no intrinsic worth to a mother buying food for her starving kids - inapplicable analogy to say the least).

Not a single person's incorrect understanding.

You are attempting to rebut the standard English language definitions of words. I quoted you actual definitions. In response, you give me your emotional reactions devoid of any supporting evidence. That's an absurd and illogical position to take. And your final sentence is tautological. You argue: "Yes. Yes it is. You sold it. It's not yours anymore. It no longer belongs to you. You have no right to future money from it." Except, I do have a right to future money from it, IF that is what the parties agreed. There is nothing "morally" wrong with an artist bargaining for that deal.