sfcityduck

Thanks to everyone for the nice comments on the books! I know Ducks are not usually sold on these forums, and sadly it looks like these books are not any exception. I'll be going another route, unless a latecomer to the party shows some interest. Gotta say, lots of neat books being posted on this Labor Day weekend.

That does seem a bit unreal. A 9.2 ow/w sold on Heritage for $5,760 less than a month ago.

The other great cover artist of the 1980s was Michael Golden. If he could make me buy a comic like ROM, with some of the worst interior art ever, than he was a pretty damn good cover artist:

For me, Sienkiewicz was one of the top 2 80s cover artists. But, it wasn't just the "black" covers, as coos as they were. He also did a great red: And probably conveyed the "pyschology" of a situation better than anyone:

PRICE DROP! These are great books which deserve a good home. $5,000 for BOTH BOOKS and they are yours! Note: This is a $1,352.50 (21%+) discount off of the last two auction prices for books in these grades (the page quality on of these books is superior!).

One of the other top of census FC 328 CGC 9.6 OW-W sold last month on August 2, 2018 for $4,560.00, this was up from $4,302.00 in August 2017. My price for this fresh to the market FC 328 CGC 9.6 OW-W is $4,200. The WDC&S 137 CGC 9.4 OW file copy sold on Heritage on February 28, 2009 for $1,792.50. My price for the better quality WDC&S 137 CGC 9.4 WHITE (which is much much rarer in high grade subscription variant) is $1,500. Thus, the most recent sale prices for these two books is approximately $6,352.50. I'm offering them for $5,700 ($650+ discount). But, if you feel you have interest in either book at a lower price, I will now consider offers by PM. AND CHECK OUT THE PRICE DROP BELOW!

There were settlement agreements and release agreements that could come into play from what I've heard. Neither of us has read them.

Book 2: Also freshly back from CGC, Walt Disney's Comics and Stories #137 (Dell, 1952) CGC NM 9.4 WHITE PAGES. Carl Barks story, cover, and art. 2 in 9.4, none higher. The other 9.4 (a "File Copy") has only "Off-White Pages," so this is a clearly better quality copy. More importantly, this copy is a subscription variant! It was mailed to the OO and has the OO's address PRINTED (not a sticker) in the address box on the back. Subscription variants have different back cover art than regular editions, and probably were printed first. It is a true "unicorn" - a subscription variant that is higher graded than the top file copy! This is a super cool book for a DD or WDC&S collector because when will you ever see a top of census subscription variant 9.4 WHITE again? This book comes from a collection of Barks' DD books compiled by the same OO which have yielded other top of census copies. The 9.4 OW file copy sold on Heritage on February 28, 2009 for $1,792.50. For my friends on the CGC boards, I will part with this for $1,500. SEE PRICE DROP BELOW! I WILL ALSO CONSIDER OFFERS BY PM.

Book 1: Freshly back from CGC is Four Color #328 Donald Duck (Dell, 1951) CGC NM+ 9.6 Off-white to white pages (and I think it really is on the white side of ow-w). This copy of "Donald Duck in Old California", with story and art by Carl Barks, is tied for CGC's highest grade for the issue with two other copies. This issue was denoted by Dell on its cover as issue #2 of the Donald Duck series (the numbering did not stick, but it is an interesting fact about the book). This book comes from a collection of Barks' DD books compiled by the same OO which have yielded other top of census copies. Please note that adding to the book's appeal, IMHO, is a non-distracting date stamp on the yellow rock. CGC census 3 in 9.6, none higher. Heritage sold one of the other two 9.6 copies on August 2, 2018 for $4,560.00, this was up from $4,302.00 in August 2017. For my friends on the CGC board, I will let this go for $4,200 SEE PRICE DROP BELOW! I WILL ALSO CONSIDER OFFERS BY PM. I realize these books are off the beaten path for what GA is usually offered here, but thought it would be worthwhile to give someone here the opportunity before I go another route. Here are some great pics of the book raw, and pics of the book in the holder:

THIS IS MY FIRST TIME USING THE SELLING FORUM! Don't worry, I will provide references or other information upon request to satisfy you that sending me payment is safe. Shipping: Actual cost as agreed to by buyer (who may have choice of shipping method). Who wins: Time stamp seals the deal as to who wins regardless of the form of communication (including PM or thread post). No House Of Shame or Probationary members or any others of ill repute. Returns: Are allowed for reasonable cause if notice is given within 48 hours of receipt of the book. I really doubt this will be an issue, but life is too short to fight over comics so I will be very reasonable if there is some issue. Payment: Paypal, bank wire, or check. No credit cards (I'm not a dealer). If you have other ideas, feel free to discuss with me. AS STATED BELOW I WILL ENTERTAIN OFFERS BY PM. CHECK OUT THE PRICE DROP IN MY LAST POST BELOW!

And I mentioned, there were relevant agreements. Here is what Jim Shooter had to say:

Updated status on books submitted at San Francisco Con: MAGAZINE MODERN Stated turnaround times when submitted: CCS = 35 b days; CGC = 45 b days (Total 80 b days or 16+ weeks or ETA of 10/3/2018) Date of Con Drop Off - 6/10/2018 CGC Received Date ("Rec-CCS Required") - 6/14/2018 (Bus. days since Con submission = 4) "At CCS" - 7/3/2018 (Bus. days since "Rec-CCS Required" = 13) STILL "At CCS" after 42 B Days (+7 b days over over stated turnaround time)!

If you are dissing my Little Dot you are WAY out of line!

As far as I can tell, the storyline may be as simple this: * Thief shows up at comic store in NYC with some of the most significant art ever produced (FF 1, AF 15, X-Men 1, ASM 1 are all known), tells comic book store owner "this wasn't stolen, but I can't tell you how I legitimately got it - want buy for cheap no questions asked?" * Comic store says "right buddy! here's a paltry amount of money!"; * The comic store then offers the art - on the low down - to a collector who either holds the art until the present or sell it on maybe one time; * The holders of the art all keep their identities and the art secret for years. It is not loaned out for the major art exhibits that have occurred; * Stories circulate in the fan press that the art has been stolen and there is considerable discussion about the art ownership - Marvel vs. artists - with no discussion that the art was legitimately sold into the market; * There are highly publicized campaigns to pressure Marvel to return original art to the artists (which do yield some relevant agreements); * And as early as the 80s, and in a widely discussed article in 1993, there are also comments by the artists (which are not hearsay if offered to prove the art's then owner's knowledge of the art theft) that Marvel's failure to pursue return of the stolen art "rewards, gratifies and sanctions the 'original artwork' thieves and their thieves' market." The legitimate inferences that a jury could draw from this factual record is that the purchasers of the art knew it was stolen and, therefore, are not entitled to the protections afforded innocent purchasers of stolen goods. Will this happen? We agree it is unlikely it would ever be litigated. I've been seeing discussion about this stolen art for 30 years or more. And I'm not a big time original art collector. Consequently, I really think it is naive or cynical to think that there is no reasonable possibility that it could be proven, under the low civil standard, that this art was stolen and the purchasers knew that when they made their purchases. I also think it is naive to think that a jury would have any sympathy for the purchasers. They've had the secret enjoyment of the art for decades, and repatriating the art to the rightful owners would cost those owners nothing as they paid a very small fraction of the art's current market value. [I am not, however, talking about the art sold at Heritage, the ship has sailed on that art and the Heritage buyers are completely protected because of the public nature of that sell and the vetting that occurred.] For me, the ethical issue is clear and jurors would see it. Certainly, I don't think there's much doubt that the owners of the art should see it. We know that the AF 15 owner did.

It is not. But, if you're in Eugene, go to Nostalgia Collectibles. I promised not to spoil his story, but I am sure he will eventually reveal the details.

I have a vague recollection that Mitch also said that they thought the odd price would look better.

The AF 15 owner told the LoC they could establish the provenance of the art "if necessary." The LoC did not want to know. I believe that the really key art has not changed hands very many times, in some cases maybe only once since sold by the thieves. The ASM 1 cover was supposedly bought and held for 30+ years. Generally, witnesses do not lie under oath, and buying the ASM 1 cover is the kind of event which is unlikely to be not remembered by an art fan.

A better analogy from the perspective of the moral compass. Holocaust art is subject to specific laws adopted in various jurisdictions that address only holocaust art.

A better analogy might be holocaust art.

I've been a civil litigator for several decades and I presently have cases in the SDNY and CDCal. I'm aware of the law, the practical realities, and the venues. Which is why I stated that "So, I agree with the practical reality" that Marvel and the artists are unlikely to sue. My comment as to the issue of proof is simple: I can depose the present holder of the art to find out who they bought it from, for how much, why they kept ownership secret, and their knowledge of the controversial nature of the art. I can depose then depose person they bought the art from, and that probably takes me back to the identity of the thief. The owner of the AF, according to the LoC, can provide a complete chain of provenance and clearly knew the art was stolen. So, no, I don't think it would be hard to establish that the art was stolen from Marvel. My real point is that this is a moral compass issue. Also, you again are conflating the issue of art theft from Marvel with the issue of the artist's entitlement to their art, which is more complicated than you think. The art theft occurred after 1976, and Marvel made some agreements that would come into play potentially.

You guys are all going the wrong direction! This little known gem may be the hippest coolest comic cover ever - I mean crazy you hepcats!: More seriously, has anyone seen another cover where the CCA stamp is colored so it incorporated in the art? This really is a cool cover.

Turns out we grew up in the same town and our parents are friends. My mother had even mentioned to me some months back that a friend's son had opened up a comic shop. Small world. Look forward to the rest of the read. As I said earlier, I enjoy the writing style.

Since neither Marvel nor Kirby heirs sued Heritage or seller over X-Men 1 art in 2008, stolen Kirby art holders are probably safe. Likely true for Ditko art holders, but there will be a Ditko estate calling shots now, not Ditko. So I agree with the practical reality. Still, I really don't see the problems of proof for a civil suit. The burden is preponderance of the evidence (which just means enough to tip a scale your direction), and all you'd have to do to evidence the theft is follow the chain of possession in depositions. Plus, you've got Ditko's statements, which might be admissible. To me, it's a moral compass issue. And I think the AF 15 holder ultimately followed his moral compass. Others should too. The key art belongs in institutions.