sfcityduck

It's incomplete and restored, but why do you say "franken cover"? To me , a "frankenbook" is one pieced together from multiple sources.

I think there are a number of "buy and hold" collectors who started collecting in the 1960s who have so little invested into their collections that they feel no need to sell (or slab). I know one such guy with a great GGA collection (FH, etc.), complete runs of most major DC titles (Batman, Superman, etc., including an Action 1 bought in 1980), Barks ducks, and all of the mega keys except MC 1 and MPFW 1 He's only selling off the fringes so far.

I detect some sarcasm, but I have enough respect for dealers like yourself that I assume you wouldn't pay to slab a book to sell if there was no market. From the above totals, it sure seems like there is enough of a market for Mad, Superman, Barman, DD, and US to warrant a lot of slabbing of non-key issues. I take your point about rarity. The lack of Fawcetts and Quality seems in contrast. But, I guess I never viewed Fiction House comics as rare. I saw a lot of them back in the 70s and 80s at stores and flea market dealers. My Dad's childhood collection (later 40s to early 50s) has as many FH as DC and Dell.

What I take from the 147 row list is: (1) The the most popular completest titles to collect amongst CGCers are MAD, Batman, Superman, Donald Duck, and Uncle Scrooge; (2) Dealers/collectors are most likely to use CGC for first issues, first appearances, and covers (.e.g, frequently sold or speculated books); (2) Timely collectors focus on mega-keys; (3) Someone must have found a lot of Mighty Midget 11s and Thing 16s; and (4) And science fiction and horror collectors, who generally are focused on covers, CGC a LOT less than you'd think. Where are the Fiction House, Atlas, Ziff Davis, etc.?

Same here.

My comment is based on the increasing prices we're seeing for conserved/restored rare mega-keys like Action 1. The prices for universal books are now so high, that the market for conserved, restored, and even incomplete copies appears very strong. Indeed, I think that the lines are beginning to blur a bit, which was, I think, the intent of the "conserved" label. I also base that comment on my knowledge of very strong offers for an Action 1 with tear seals and cover cleaning. I don't think the market for "common books" can be compared to the market for Action 1. As for your question: "Would you take a restored/conserved book over a raw book in the same price range? I'd rather not. Love the authenticity ..." First, conserved or restored books are not, in my view, per se not "authentic." I don't view a tear seal or the cleaning of rust off of staples, both of which prevents future degradation of the comic, as rendering a book unauthentic. The market has already decided that a cover cleaning which removes foreign matter from the comic, including pencil marks, is not restoration. I would rather own a comic with replaced period appropriate staples than one with rusty staples. I think concerns about "authenticity" legitimately increase as we talk about piece filling, especially when we are talking about really large pieces. These massively restored books that are now popping up that look like they have xerox covers do not appeal to me, although they do appear to be selling. But, I can envision a scenario where I would pay more for a restored copy of a comic than an incomplete copy. For example, we have all seen comic books which had the top third of its cover ripped off for a return. I can envision paying more for a mega-key in that condition if the top third was replaced with an original looking piece than if it was a two-thirds cover. Especially when that piece can be removed. P.S. Fine art includes limited edition multiples like woodblock prints, etc.

I did. Sparkle City was saying it was moderate/extensive when I first looked at the book and posted. Hence my comment that there was "no need to state the obvious." Let's both move on.

I already did. I'm focusing on the words in italics and here's what I said:

As a courtesy, I'll make one more post in response to you to answer your questions: First, Zen514 noted mulltiple times on the first page of this thread, before you ever posted, that the restoration on this book was "extensive." So stop patting yourself on the back for being first to note that. Second, I didn't look at the auction for this book until the time I posted, three pages into this thread. At that point in the conversation, there was no need to state the obvious.

That's not what you said. And that's not what I called disparaging and factually inaccurate. This is: "this seller's greed, his cracking it out and going the eBay raw route" "when the buyer submits this to the CGC, and it bounds back to him or her in a 0.5 purple labeled holder from whence it came" "What do you call the decision to bypass having it slabbed, a 0.5, to market it as a 3.5 or 4.0, or 4.5, or 5.0 raw? Those statements are factually incorrect and disparaging. The book was never in a PLOD. The book was never marketed as a 3.5 to 5.0 raw (it was marketed as a .5 that looked better than the grade). Not sure why you want to keep boring people by digging this hole. We've been asked to stop. I'm moving on.

Fair enough. What interests me about this discussion is that there appears to be a sea change happening right now in the attitude towards restored/conserved high end books. To my eyes, they appear to be gaining a much greater degree of acceptance. As someone who buys fine art, I don't view conservation or restoration negatively because I want art preserved for future generations. (In contrast, what I do view negatively is the irrational view that staple replacement or staple cleaning (especially of rusty staples) should adversely impact a comic book's value because that encourages degradation of comics.) So I, for one, am not at all unhappy to see responsible conservation and restoration accepted by the marketplace. I just hope the marketplace encourages appropriate conservation/restoration and discourages destructive conservation/restoration. Having said that, I think this book is a great candidate for appropriate conservation/restoration. Why? It's already been worked on. It's incomplete. It's got good bones. The end result of the right marriage (or two) could be an additional nice complete Action 1(s). How much will this book or resulting Frankenbooks sell for? I'm not qualified to do anything but guess. But, I will say this: I know of a restored Action 1 which has gotten multiple legitimate offers significantly north of $500K. I believe we will likely see a restored/conserved Action 1 push or exceed the $1M mark in the next ten years.

When have I questioned your "hobby knowledge"? What I question is your wisdom. You are throwing out incorrect factual assertions (asserting the book used to be in a PLOD and was cracked out by the seller) to support your disparaging assertions about the seller and/or Sparkle City. In an activity where reputation matters, it is unwise and wrong to disparage someone's reputation without good cause.

Yep. And the statement in the original listing is: As you can see, Sparkle City stated there was restoration and it was in the "4 extent range." Under CGC's scale "4" means "moderate/extensive." They also disclosed it would be a .5 incomplete if encapsulated. The confusion here appears to stem from Sparkle City's original statement that it was "incomplete with (slight restoration) color touch, ..." and Sparkle City's new statement that there is "Color touch (slight on cover), ..." The word "slight" modifies "color touch," and does not appear to have been intended to contradict the disclosure that the overall restoration was a 4 (moderate/extensive). At least, that's how I read it. So, I continue to believe there was no cause to disparage the seller or Sparkle City.

This might be your only good post on this thread. Great band! Saw them live in a small city concert hall in 1983 on their final day of a week of rehearsals for the Stop Making Sense movie.

Nah. Waste of my time. I went to a better law school than your chosen on-line law school. One of the things I learned is that libel and slander are somewhat archaic terms that have different meanings in "legalese" and "plain English." The correct legal term used these days is usually defamation. And, in any events, regardless of the title ("liber per se", "slander per se," or "defamation per se"), NY courts apply the concept to internet postings.

You are now arguing that absent actual damage, no cause of action for defamation can exist (by Sparkle City, of course, you aren't talking about me). One major problem with your premature declaration of victory: Under New York law (and the law of most other states) which I think would govern, in a defamation action based on a statement constituting "libel per se," actual damage is presumed. See, e.g., Technovate LLC v Fanelli, 2015 NY Slip Op 51349 (September 10, 2015), which explained: You might start asking yourself: "Why does sfcityduck know this?" You might also ask yourself whether, when accused of irresponsibly disparaging others, it's a good defense of your character to argue: "So what? You're not suffering monetary loss."

Think about what you are saying when you falsely state about a comic dealer: "What do you call the decision to bypass having it slabbed, a 0.5, to market it as a 3.5 or 4.0, or 4.5, or 5.0 raw?" Then go look up "libel per se" on Google. And you'll find an answer.

You're welcome.

I would call it a "wise business decision" because the best market for the book are people who will piece it out to create a retored Frankenbook. Furthermore, you are again disparaging someone based on false factual assertions. Sparkle City disclosed that third party graders would label the book a .5 restored. Sparkle City's assertion that the book presents much better than a .5 and has a 3.0 appearance is not misleading to any one in the market for this book. It is common for dealers to argue that books present better than what they have or would be graded at.

This is the statement that I believe was unwise of you to make if you were unclear on the facts: "... this seller's greed, his cracking it out and going the ebay raw route ...." This is a hobby in which reputation is important. I'd hope participants would not disparage others without good cause.

You would do well to read the posts more carefully. That way you would not come across so foolish with statements like this. Again, on what do you base your assertion that this book came out of a PLOD?

No. I'm saying Gator knows that the current high bidder has a coverless copy. Gator is predicting he will win. Gator has built up enough credibility that I tend to believe his predictions, but you're free to disagree with his opinions. You would be wise not to disagree with his factual assertion (the high bidder owns a coverless copy) unless you know otherwise.

First, "slander" can be written or oral. The distinction between "slander" and "libel" is usually reserved for legal contexts. But, if you prefer substitute "defamatory." Second, I have already pointed that your assertion of fact, which you still have not backed up, that the seller took the book out of a PLOD is definitely within the realm of defamatory statements when coupled with your assertion that his motivation for that still unproven act is that he is "greedy."

The term "likely" modifies "win." He does not appear to be guessing in his statement, and based on ten years of reading of his posts - I am certain he is not.

It is authentic and original (e.g., not a counterfeit or reprint). And they have modified the description in the Q&A from "slight" to "moderate/extensive." You need to read the whole description.