sfcityduck

What a strange debate. This shipped sailed long long ago and I don't see the need for a retcon. BB 54 is the first team-up of Robin, Kid Flash, and Aqualad. Subsequent DC comics refer back to BB 54 as the first appearance of the Teen Titans, including BB 60 which quotes Robin as stating that the group was formed after the events in BB 54 (and necessarily before the events in BB 60): "Teen Titans is a group of junior crime fighters I set up after Kid Flash, Aqualad, and I helped the teenagers of Hatton Corners." Thus, from the perspective of story continuity, BB54 is clearly a Teen Titans issue even if it did not establish the trademark from a legal perspective. (Same as with Antman.) It is not a prototype ala having Dr. Occult wear a cape or even an acrobat wear a Capt. America costume or Lois Lane wear a Superwoman costume. It is an in continuity Teen Titans story. When DC decided to compile all the appearances of the Teen Titans in the Archives line of books they started with BB54. Moreover, the first time the story from BB54 was reprinted, in 1972, in DC 100 Page Super Spectacular DC-21, it was labeled on the cover as being a "Teen Titans" story. Hard to fault Overstreet for calling BB54 the first Teen Titans appearance when that's exactly what DC was doing back when the Guide was first written.

Let me get this straight: CGC has adopted a "new scale" that encourages people to crack out "old scale" books for resubmission to CGC for new restoration (ca-ching) and resubmission (ca-ching) to get a better grade, and you don't see anything noteworthy?

But something happened in the mean time that was well discussed on here: CGC's restoration grading standards changed. That might be enough to explain everything. That was my thought exactly. Three thoughts though: (1) The resto on the book has changed. Is that what you are referring to? It now has "leafcasting" instead of a prior technique. To effectuate that transition, the prior technique had to be reversible or it had to be removed with some additional paper loss. So if the downgrade from Ext to Mod is because leafcasting was substituted, it begs the question of what Ext. and Mod. really mean: Techniques used or amount of repair? (2) Of course, CGC promotes "leafcasting" now, so color me a little cynical about "grading changes" that would appear to encourage folks to crack open books, get the resto changed to a new technique, and resubmitted (perhaps with a greater amount of work having been done) to get a better "grade," all to the profit of the grading company. (3) My cynicism is not abated if dealers who take advantage of these "opportunities" to the detriment of consumers say "no biggee, the standards changed." But, I'm a cynical guy and there are far too many cautionary stories on these forums.

Are you conflating the "DA was offered X" story with the story about how Geppi offered $1M in an ad for a NM Action 1?

Several folks here bid on the AC1 9.0. Several others could. And you never know who is out there. Would anyone have suspected that Darren Adams paid seven figures for an AC1 before he disclosed that info? I think not.

You really got a man crush on Fishler. My guess is that there a number of collectors who have the money and inclination to buy Action 1. Two obvious examples who already have pretty good copies: Eric and Jack White. Eric didn't bid. I don't think he's into comic books now just OA. He already has a copy, so its no surprise he didn't bid. But, the point remains, there are people in the hobby with deeper pockets than Fishler.

You really got a man crush on Fishler. My guess is that there a number of collectors who have the money and inclination to buy Action 1. Two obvious examples who already have pretty good copies: Eric and Jack White.

As I said earlier in the thread, it sure seems that Gator knows all but can't speak plainly due to confidentiality concerns (either contractual or personal).

Why would anyone pay to get a book graded if they did not want to sell it? It's throwing money away (something Verzyl and DA haven't done) and it steals the thunder of a big splash when you eventually do want to sell it. You'd think that Metro would want its record sell price back ... but it does have the record purchase price, so I wouldn't think they'd be rushing a book to market. I could see a seller going with eBay now that Adams has shown the path.

Your memory is right. It was in the 80s.

51 and +1 50 and -1 42 and -1 39 and +1 48 and -1

I've learned three things from this thread: (1) There's a new D27 in 9.2 on the CGC census; (2) Gator knows everything about it, wants to buy it, but is limited on what he can say here because of either non-disclosure agreements or good business practices in maintaining the confidentiality of his sources and conversations; and (3) the Batman vs. Superman debate is eternal.

Speaking of rumors, didn't MMehdy once post that he knew of a collector with a high grade Action 1 that was waiting on the submission of the Church copy and hoping a "page quality bump" might get his a higher grade?

The ad even as has the period placement error!

Channeling Frazetta Frazetta was a Hal Foster fan and Toth was a Noel Sickles fan. Both of them evolved beyond these initial influences but I'm not aware of any real influence of either of them on the other. The figure and lighting reminded me of something I've seen Frazetta do - this cover has a figure in almost the same pose only reversed. http://www.comics.org/issue/216525/cover/4/ I'm sure you're right - there's not direct connection but as we all know artists keep swipe libraries which include other artists work they like a pose from. That cover is stereotypical Sickles/Caniff school, of which Toth was one of the biggest followers. I don't see anything I'd view as Frazetta (or Foster) stylings in that cover. Of the big three schools of comic strip action art (Foster, Raymond, and Sickles/Caniff), Foster was by far the hardest to emulate. Sickles/Caniff were far more emulated. And Raymond's influence was very broad. P.S. Just noticed that the Toth cover predates the Frazetta cover.

Misquote or does he really believe it? Agree or disagree?

I know a guy in Oregon who's has a complete run of Detective that he completed in the 80s. None of the books in that run have seen the light of day in a minimum of 30 years -- with some out of circulation since the late 60s and early 70s. I don't think he's atypical. He says that run is the last one he'll sell, but he's starting to liquidate his collection very methodically and slowly with eyes on retirement. I expect he'll sell all his books in the next ten years.

Sounds like a terrific project and, kudos to the artist for being so daring to attempt it.

What's cool about that All Star #37 cover is that none of the villains want the great State of Oregon.

Not GA, but Iron Man 1 and Captain Marvel 1?

It's the Hindu variant edition.

Even a cursory examination of the original art market shows that non-aesthetic considerations (nostalgia, character, "historical significance" to comic collectors, etc.) are a major driver of market demand and value. Which makes sense. Comic book original art buyers are interested in comic books, not fine art, which is why they commission their favorite artists to paint comic cover recreations or sketches of guys and gals in tights, instead of commissioning those artists to paint a mountain or sketch a café scene.

My guess is Heritage puts out such long advance notice for pieces like this because they want prospective purchasers to have time to consign pieces to Heritage to raise money. As far as how desirable this piece is, from the standpoint of a Wolverine collector, I'd obviously rank it below the cover Hulk 181, GS X-Men 1 (which is owned by David Mandel and looks fantastic close up), and some other covers -- but that's not a fair comparison. As far as interior pages go, I'd personally rather have the famous "Now its my turn" page from X-Men 132 and perhaps the sequence where Wolverine kills the guard in X-Men 116. Byrne's art is far superior and those are iconic moments for the character. But, this is really cool and I do think the sky is the limit.

She may be important to Batman lore, but she's not more important to Batman lore than Lex Luthor (or even Lois Lane) is to Superman lore. But, really, that's beside the point. My focus is on her import to popular culture. We all know what Lex Luthor stands for. He's short hand for an archetype. What on earth does Catwoman stand for? She's just yet another spin on the bad girl (possibly with a heart of gold) that the hero might be able to redeem. It's a very common plot device. And she doesn't define it in the public's mind.