buttock

There was one in this past auction that had a 200% BP. Not joking. I don't know if it was an error or serious, but either way... not a good look.

I'll take this one

It's a little known fact that Detroit was located in Minnesota for the war to protect it from the Japanese.

Take

Just got 2 large packages from Canada via FedEx, arrived before they were supposed to. Still waiting on a USPS package.

I should have figured you'd have that issue, given the cover artist.

It's almost like I know what I'm talking about sometimes!

That looks like Everett drew only the Venus figure. The remainder looks nothing like him. Maybe Brodsky?

Funny, I was going to reference this issue in my last post. Look at the detail in the background. Just a great example of an artist at his peak.

Everett was so fine tuned at that point in his career. Its like he was flexing to show the other artists what he could do. Yes, the conception of the cover is great, but look at the technical execution!

Too much habanero sauce on the wings.

I really wish we could find more about the 'grease pencil S' collection

The distributor codes were applied by the retailer, not the distributor. It was a way of noting which distributor they would return books to for those that didn't sell.

I've seen a slowdown through USPS, but nothing terrible and nothing lost. I've had 2 UPS packages sent to me, both were quite valuable. I tried to redirect one to be held at the store, they left it on my front porch without a signature. The second was forgotten in customs for a week until I called them and asked them to find it. That was supposed to be overnighted. FedEx, I've seen a delay of roughly an additional day, nothing lost.

Have you considered online dating?

Wow Jay, you never see these in this shape! Love it.

It's got to be way more than that. Way more.

Yes

Don't confuse my discussion for approval of the process. I still really really really don't like my books tampered with, although I will do it begrudgingly from time to time. My point is, that if you take the 3 high grade Batman 1s discussed and put them side by side 20 years ago and again today, their order of grade appears to be accurate. That's a big change from 10 years ago when CGC couldn't grade golden age accurately at all. Someone looking to get the nicest available copy of Batman 1 will evidently do so if they buy this book. I'm not sure where the "trying to hide something" comment is coming from, but... have fun with that.

That's not a straw man argument.

Gotcha, no mention of pressing at all. Good to know you're ok with it.

Ah yes, original art, where nothing shady ever happens.

Define "original".

There are 2 Action 1 9.0s. One was formerly an 8.0, and it's by far the nicer of the two. The issue is that the CGC grade isn't the be-all arbiter of which copy is truly the nicest in a collector's eyes. A CGC grade is a shortcut to try and give someone an idea of what a book looks like using a number. Obviously that's going to have inadequacies. And obviously it's a system that has flaws that people can take advantage of. The error you're making is in giving WAY more power and credence to that simple number. As virtually every other seasoned collector is aware, you judge the book on its own merit beyond the number on the label. In this world of information, none of this is a secret, it took the boards a few hours to identify this book's history. The sooner you can lose the hangup on the label number, the sooner you'll be able to move on. It's nothing more than an opinion. Oh, and should CGC make an "original " label? No. That's a ridiculous idea. Just no.

Let me play a little devil's advocate. Before CGC you'd often look at a book like this -- prior to it being pressed -- and you'd say clearly that it was nicer than the technical grade. One thing this discussion has fleshed out is that when comparing these 3 books, the one that's currently a 9.4 was the nicest of the three prior to any manipulation. 25 years ago if you put all 3 out in front of someone and asked them to grade them you'd get a clear hierarchy, but you wouldn't have needed to press out NCB wear to do so -- that would be factored into the grade. At current you now have a grading company that has decided to make that NCB wear a greater part of the technical grade. As a consequence of this, in order for the grades on the label to accurately reflect the degree of niceness of these books, you have to monkey with them. (and let's be fair, pressing likely has zero consequence on the lifespan of the paper) So all of this to say, that (as least as we're hearing in this thread) CGC actually got the hierarchy of the books right, which should be applauded. It's just the way that the rules were defined that sits so poorly. Taking this a little further, if we wanted CGC to ignore that NCB wear and not factor it into the grade, then you'd get on a slippery slope where a 5 mm thumbnail crease is factored the same as a book length NCB reading bend. I don't think any of us would be happy with that scenario either. But the take home message is that the books appear to have been sorted out accurately by grade, which means that the system actually worked. So bottom line is, pressable wear is a factor in grading. CGC has to take it into account. The only way to not have it taken into account is a) to not have books certified or b) press it out. If anyone has any 7 figure books that they're willing to leave that money on the table on principle, then please reach out to me first before selling. Going forward I just ask that anyone who is going to have a big book graded just have its potential maximized before ever getting it certified so that we no longer have to have these conversations.