Tony S

Maybe I didn't make my point clearly. The other grading companies do not use the newsstand designation until sometime in the late 1970's. So it's dumb to see PSA identify an Incredible Hulk 181 (1974) a newsstand copy. They were all newsstand copies. Here is CGC's standard: When does CGC identify a newsstand edition? Even though almost every comic book sold prior to 1979 was technically a newsstand edition, CGC will only identify a newsstand copy if a direct market edition also exists.

Has anyone mentioned it's dumb identifying a copy of Hulk 181 as a "newsstand". They are all newsstand. Sure, a very small number were distributed by Seuling's Sea Gate Distributors (and maybe by 1974 Sea Gate had a couple of competitors) but they were still "newsstand" copies. There is nothing different about the books that Sea Gate sold to comic shops versus those that went through traditional distribution to drug stores, book stands and the rest. Current comic grading companies do not identify comics as newsstand or direct until what - 1978?

Just don't go there. The only way to remove the foxing will be with solvents or bleaching. Sodium borohydride mixed with water would be much like lye soap. A caustic agent. Things that burn skin, eyes, etc. There are indeed YouTube videos of people using hydrogen peroxide and UV lights to lighten and even sometimes remove stains. There are also Youtube videos of people crying "CGC WON"T LET ME CLEAN!!" because CGC caught on to them and started giving conserved or restored labels to their books. Dry cleaning of surface dirt and the like with erasers is allowed. Solvent cleaning or bleaching if detected by CGC will get a "cover cleaned" and conserved label. Send in a couple of books as a test to see what sort of grade you get (that is what the bit of foxing limits the grade to) If you don't like the grades assigned then stop. They are not - for you - good CGC grading candidates. Sell them and use the money to buy something more to your liking or just bag and board (you cannot see the back cover then, right?) and keep them that way. But if you start bleaching or using solvents or other agents on the cover you are going to experience all manner of problems and always risking the dreaded conserved label. You can end up with "reverse tide marks" Where the area cleaned is noticeably whiter than the surrounding paper. You can lift off the gloss of the paper - ending up with a spot where it's obvious the book has been worked on. The solution to tide marks and stripping of gloss is to treat the entire cover. But the more you do the more likely CGC will notice and say the book has been altered. No blue label for that book. So just don't. You will ultimately be happier for doing nothing. Except a normal, allowed, clean and press.

Sounds like the sorta place that if anyone breaks in to your shipping container it's to hide a body

If that was all that was done the 75% discount is too large. But with coloring done on interior pages the impact on grade would be much, much larger than just a name written on the first page.

OMG... So true!!

I love arrival dates on comics and do not expect to pay any less as a result. I do not like names written on the covers and expect to pay a good deal less.

I believe three pieces of tape as described will have more of an impact than what has been discusses so far. Like virtually any defect, it is a matter of degree. From the CGC grading guide: "Minor tape serving no function has little effect on midgrade comics, but large amounts of tape, such as a strip along the entire spine, can lower a grade to around 4.0." Three pieces of tape around the size one might use to seal a comic bag is going to be what - maybe three to four inches of tape total? That's not the same as an entire spine (ten inches) but it doesn't sound like a "minor" amount of tape either. So I believe the amount of tape being discussed will have some effect on the final grade. Not mentioned is if the old tape is staining the paper. If it is the impact on grade could be more.

I believe this issue of shill bidders and legality and morality has nuances to it. Legally - in at least some states (and for sure the ones auction houses - like Heritage) locate in it appears to be based both on intent and on what has been disclosed. Shills only seek to drive up the price. They do not want to win any of the items they bid on. This looks to be illegal everywhere. Including say Texas, where Heritage is located. But if it is stated in the terms of the auction house or listing or event that "the owner, consignor, or agent thereof has reserved the right to bid" - well there you have it. And Heritage (the only auction house I've looked over all the fine print in the agreement) says just that. Consignors can bid on their own lots. It's a minimum bid if done in writing before the live auction (and they maybe pay a reduced fee if the win their own lot) and if done during the live auction and they win they pay the full fee. Heritage also clearly states that "From time to time, the Auctioneer, its affiliates, or their employees may place bids on lots in the Auction." Auctioneer, affiliates and employees. That pretty much covers everyone, right? So... IMHO, shilling is wrong. Put it in an auction - get what it sells for is honest. But on the other hand - WHY do only the big auction houses get to shill and it's OK? Shill Legally and doesn't seem to affect their reputation or business. My question above is a bit rhetorical. I've answered already. It is very nuanced. They have told you - if you read all the fine print - they might have associates or the auctioneer or employees of the company bid. They have told you the possibility exists the consignor might bid in some fashion - creating a hidden reserve. If one was to list books on eBay and say all this in the description it would be legal (though eBay still might shut the listing down because legal or not it violates their listing policy) But even if eBay didn't take down the listing anyone reading the description would be much less likely to bid. Heritages listing agreement. https://www.ha.com/c/ref/terms-and-c....zx?view=terms

There are certainly people like what you describe. But there is another reason. There are many in the hobby that have little in the way of grading skills. They can't "buy the book not the label" because they lack the experience to see defects and assess their likely impact on the grade of the book. And restoration. It's easy for experienced collectors to miss small amounts of professional restoration and tiny amounts of amateur. So for a good number of newbies and amateurs - "buy the book not the label" really should not be a thing. New collectors or legally blind collectors or just lacking enough experience collectors should be able to count on professional grading and encapsulation is an equalizer. What's on the label is what it is.

That is a profound observation.

Sure. Post away

Back when Matt Nelson ran his own comic pressing and restoration business - Classics Incorporated - he had an article on the website that demonstrated mathematically how there should have been more 9.9's and 10's in the CGC census. The article was quite convincing. The moment CGC purchased the business and renamed it CCS, that article went poof - even though the Classics Inc website stayed active for a time. I think Matt was right then. Maybe Matt still feels the same way - and as President can now do something about it. This basically started with the infamous interview about "how is there is not a single 9.9 or 10 on a book like Ultimate Fallout ". Matt's answer was along the lines of maybe they were to focused on 9.8 and were not looking. So lets go over those numbers. Between the 1st and 2nd printings and the variant covers of each, CGC has certified over 8,500 copies of UF 4 at 9.8 (published 2011) and not one single book at a MINT grade of 9.9 or 10. That seems pretty darn unlikely. So yeah - I too have said here on this forum before that there ought to be more 9.9 and 10's. Especially of real "modern" books - say published the last 25 years. Better printing, better paper. 100% agree on consistency being the most important quality of grading. But if something has been done consistently wrong, it needs to be fixed. Books should get the grades they deserve. Or as Steve Borock has always said, give the book the highest grade that is not wrong. CGC has arguably not been doing that. Despite the existence of the grades of 9.9 and 10, those two grades were more like winning lottery tickets. The change may be disruptive and it may generate more submissions to CGC But that doesn't mean it should not happen. Or I suppose we could do away with 9.9 and 10 and say the ones that exist were mistakes never to be made again.

This is the best Friday thread in years! The responses are golden! Mary Jane Watson. Netflix and chill....

It's just going to get bent down again by the inner holder. I don't believe pressing is the problem. The problem is the cover hangs too far over the interior pages of the book and the inner well will bend it down. If CGC doesn't make the inner well fairly snug then the book can slide around which causes other - and potentially worse - problems.

The early Marvels had great first page splashes - sometimes nicer than the cover. When Stan was still alive and signing books I would often have coverless books signed by him and then encapsulated. The book will get a NG (no grade) from CGC and as KCOComics noted, will be worth at most a couple of hundred dollars. Maybe only in the $100-$125 range. I would consider sending a coverless Avengers 1 or 4 in for grading, but not much else from that title.

I am surprised no one has mentioned it - so I will. This doesn't look like an issue with pressing. This is an encapsulation issue. The book has cover overhang - the cover is a a bit larger than the interior pages of the book. The inner well is bending that overhang down. I've had books CGC would not encapsulate because the overhang was enough that they knew the outer edge(s) of the cover would be bent down. You could press the paper back flat - but the same thing is going to happen as soon as you encapsulate it and then have the book shift around a bit during shipping. This is one of the problems the original Generation 2 holder was supposed to solve. As people probably recall, there was no sealed inner well. The books were sandwiched between two sheets of Mylar - with the outer holder applying pressure to hold the books in place. But problems with uneven pressure caused bends/waves in the books. The other grading companies use a tampered seal all along the outside edge of the inner holder. This is far less likely to bend over and damage overhang. But the books also have a bit more space to move around - which can cause it's own set of problems. Most often little tears at the staples. The real solution is to treat comic books with noticeable cover overhang as "do not grade and encapsulate".

Reholdering requires the complete removal of the comic. New inner holder, new outer holder, new label printed.

So a green label - because of unwitnessed signature(s) - CGC slab is submitted in the intact, undamaged and untampered with holder for signature verification. Could the book not be treated as a reholder for grade/encapsulation purposes? With regrading there is a chance that books come back grading lower. That could result in negative feelings by the owners of such books and less interest in sending in unwitnessed signatures/green label books.

CGC's listed TAT for pressing is 15 BUSINESS days and is only an estimate. "Almost a month" isn't far enough outside 15 business days to be concerned about and falls within "normal".

The books were dropped off at Kirby's house for his signature and picked up later. The belief is that most were signed by Kirby's wife as Kirby's health was poor. I'm not aware of any passing authentication by BAS - but maybe some have.

Yeah --- this is a big deal. Not just the cost - but the chance of the grade going down. It would seem logical that if a green label qualified grade book (because of unwitnessed signatures) is submitted - with the slab intact and not tampered with - that JSA would review the signatures and CGC would otherwise treat the book as a reholder. Not something the graders need to look at again. People are going to be really unhappy with their green label books getting signatures verified but dropping in grade.

I had no idea. Thank you for sharing this very useful information!

"Member" (what a great name) said it well. CCG did not spend what was most likely a dump truck full of money on JSA just devalue the purchase by creating some new disliked and looked down on label. It' is near certain that verified books will have a yellow signature series label. It will either be in the text on the label that JSA authenticated the signature. OR - maybe more likely - there will be a snappy looking JSA logo somewhere on the label. If it's a JSA logo maybe people be able to see it without squinting

I would have to disagree. Multiple label colors are a distraction. It's reasonable to assume comic book collectors have basic reading skills. CBCS's labels clearly indicate if the book was "signed by xxx on xxx date" or if "signature verified by BAS". Either way, it's a book with a signature. To those that it matters which way - read the label. So my hope - and expectation - is that CGC will treat verified - by JSA - signatures to the same yellow SS label.