SOTIcollector

On our last trip to Burlington, I was eager to finally try Heady Topper. I was surprisingly underwhelmed by it. But we found some awesome stuff at Foam. Great books, BTW! They go well with Tree House.

Wait, what? All this chit-chat, and the book hasn’t sold yet?

As of 2019, CGC will list the contents of an EC annual on the label (page 7 of this thread). Based on the contents, it's easy to tell what's in the book: stories, art, character appearances, whether it's SOTI, and lots of other stuff. I don't get why CGC wouldn't make it standard procedure to list the complete contents, whenever possible, on all books that are made up of remainders. Fox Giants, EC Annuals, etc. And as for needing another collecting focus? I don't see that happening.. Although I hit an easily quantifiable milestone, there are still lots of things for me to collect: articles and books related to the anti-comics era, the NY State Legislature reports, the dangerous comics used in POP and Love & Death and the Senate report and Wertham's articles, and the list goes on. Plus I still collect books that strike my fancy because of their offensiveness: racism, violence, sex, red scare, and so on. All the while, I'm looking to slowly add decent slabbed books to my mostly-raw SOTI collection. So while I did hit a big milestone, the net I'm casting is still far larger than my time or budget will allow so I won't be trying to expand my collecting focus any time soon.

It certainly does look legit. Usually, the fakes and the reprints are easy to spot, and this looks real. However, high-grade copies of this book don’t just fall out of trees every day. This is the second one in three days that I have seen online with somebody saying, “is this real?” When somebody asks that question, usually it is because they are considering an offer that seems too good to be true. And when it seems too good to be true, it usually is. I would want to know the story behind the book. if the story is: “I got this from my uncle and he only owns this one book. And by the way, cash only and no returns.” It’s a scam. It’s certainly possible that there is a new and convincing fake out in the world somewhere.

This one isn't exactly a new discovery, but it's still exciting to add to my collection of Seduction of the Innocent books that was already complete. Now that I have all the books that Wertham is known to have mentioned in SOTI, there's not a lot of room for the collection to grow. However, every now and then I'm able to turn up something fun to add to the collection. I've been looking for a while at Fox Giants, since they are made up of remaindered copies of other books. In a few cases, I've been fortunate enough to turn up SOTI books inside Fox Giants. What I hadn't thought to do is try to hunt down the EC annuals. I stumbled onto two available copies of WSF Annual #2, and it hit me that I should be checking these for SOTI books. Lo and behold, both of the copies I checked happened to contain Weird Science #19. This is a book that was not just mentioned, but pictured, in SOTI. So I'm thrilled to add this new SOTI book to my collection. I consider this to be more of an "honorable mention" SOTI book than an actual SOTI book, since it's far more likely that Wertham saw the story in the regular 10-cent book than in this annual. Still, I thought it was a cool pickup and I was excited to add it to the collection.

And are that many people really willing to lie for the guy? He posts in his auctions, "PLEASE SELECT JUST DIDNT LIKE IT AS THE REASON. " which is clearly saying "If you disagree with my overgrading, lie about it so you can save me money and I can keep scamming people."

Jungle 95 $250.

What does he get right? What does he get wrong? I don't know for sure because I haven't gotten my copy yet. My best guess is that the Seduction of the Innocent information will be all wrong again, as it is every year. The listing somehow combines the second print with the UK first print. It states that the 1972 Kennikat Press version is a reprint of the "second version", which is incorrect. It lists different prices for the dust jacket for both the first state (with bibliography) and the second state (without bibliography), even though there is only one dust jacket on both of those versions. It states that the 2004 edition is limited to 220 copies, which is incorrect because to this day they just print another 220 every time their printing of 220 (or however many it actually is) sells out. For years, this listing has been so wrong as to be useless. The Parade of Pleasure info is wrong as well. The listing indicates that POP was "Distributed in the USA by Library Publishers, N.Y." Actually, the US edition was an entirely different printing, published a year later than the original UK edition.

I have all of those books for you. But I'll only sell them in a collection of 60 longboxes. Also included are the first 99 issues of Captin Ameerica from the 60's, and the first 82 issues of Thore. You can have 'em all for $30K. Wire transfer to my bank in the Cayman Islands only. No local pickup. $850 shipping. As-is. No returns. Batteries not included. I don't have photos of the books, but I can get you some pictures of the boxes if you ask really nicely.

I disagree with the premise that the 90's were the Dark Ages for comics. The Death of Superman was an enormous commercial success, and it brought in a whole new crop of collectors. Some were reading and collecting; others heard on the news that this "Death of Superman" book that came out last week was already selling for $75, or they lost their shirts investing in sports cards and were looking for another speculator market. They dove into comics figuring they'd join the fun and make some easy cash. Publishers saw increased sales, and they rushed to imitate Liefeld and scrambled to publish gimmick covers that sold just because they were gimmicks. If I recall correctly, the 1990's brought us the first-ever: hologram cover, glow-in-the-dark cover, chromium cover, foil cover, lenticular cover, die-cut cover, polybagged comic, and comic book with a bullet hole. With each new gimmick, retailers ordered boatloads and collectors "invested" in those boatloads. Those books had high print runs because people paid attention to them, because they were gimmicks. However, there were never enough actual readers to sustain those print runs. When you find a box of 90's drek, it's likely to contain those high-print-run, low-quality books. But in the 1990's, there were some great writers, as noted by Ready Fire Aim. Among those noted, I'd single out Kurt Busiek and Alex Ross' Marvels, an amazing re-telling of the early Silver Age of Marvel, viewed from the eyes of somebody without super-powers. The 1990's also gave us Neil Gaiman's Sandman (okay, it started in 1989, but was mostly a 1990's series), Hellblazer, Strangers in Paradise and Bone, to name a few other standouts. I also loved the beginning of the Valiant universe, when Jim Shooter was at the helm. XO Manowar, Harbinger and those first 10 issues of Solar were particularly good; when I sold off the rest of my Valiants during the bubble, I had to hang onto those. Yes, the 90's gave us drek with high print runs. But it also gave us some great books that stand out to this day.

I did the same. I wasn't aware of this guy till this thread. A lot has been said about him by some very reputable people, but that alone typically wouldn't be enough for me to give somebody the personal lifetime ban. However, Dyldo's own postings are enough for me to determine I'll never do business with him. I don't care if he has the last book I need for a run... he's never getting a penny of my money.

Here I thought I was sitting down to read a bunch of real-life drama unfolding in more-or-less real time. And I got that. I learned lots of stuff about this Dylan character that I didn't know previously. I know enough now to steer far away from him. But I also learned something much more awesome. "Für Elise" has another name. Never knew that. Thanks. Or should I say "Domo Arigato."

Oops. I have to correct myself. I went back to my photos from Wertham's files at the Library of Congress, certain I was going to find the photo of kids looking at the needle-to-the-eye image in the promo for the Charles-Fourth Gallery. Instead, I found that it wasn't True Crime #2 at all that the kids were looking at. It was a panel from All-Top #14 (which did end up in SOTI) and a panel from another book (which I identified some time ago, but don't know offhand which one). So True Crime #2 was not mentioned in the promo piece for the gallery like I thought. It was, however, included on a Christmas card Wertham sent with that newsstand image. You can just barely see the logo under his right wrist. I always figured this photo was staged, probably with comics from Wertham's own collection, based on the publication dates of the comics and the fact that there were multiple issues of the same title (True Crime, Human Torch). Plus the fact that True Crime #2 just happens to appear here. And just for fun, here's a photostat in Wertham's files, which is most likely the photostat Wertham used for the publication of SOTI.

If I had to pick a one-and-done a SOTI book, then hands down it would be this baby. Sure, Wertham complained about superhero comics and romance comics and pretty much every genre there is. But the mere existence of the crime comic book genre really got his panties in a bunch. As a crime book, this has everything you have come to expect: drug dealing, drug use, extreme violence galore. It comes from a publisher that published sleazy paperbacks and trashy detective magazines. Wertham criticized this book far more than any other single book. Scroll down for examples... In his first nationally-published anti-comics article, Wertham made sure that the "injury to the eye" panel from True Crime #2 was prominently placed. When the Charles-Fourth Gallery had an exhibit called "School for Sadism", it was promoted with pictures of children looking at a blown-up copy of that now-famous injury-to-the-eye panel. I can't find the image at the moment, so here's an article about the exhibit. I found it amusing that Wertham would claim that comics are harmful to kids, but then this exhibit to which he contributed showed children staring at the panel he found so objectionable. If the panel is so harmful, good doctor, why are YOU exposing kids to it? I'm pretty sure True Crime #2 was also pictured in the 1953 NY State Legislature document, but I don't have my photos of it handy. In November, 1953, Ladies' Home Journal published an excerpt from SOTI, which was scheduled for publication the following year. For this magazine, Wertham selected that injury-to-the-eye panel as well as a photo of a magazine rack that features, you guessed it, True Crime #2 (as well as issue 3 and lots of other great books). When the Ladies' Home Journal article was reprinted as a standalone, the injury-to-the-eye panel received front page coverage. And when SOTI came out, there was a mention of True Crime on pages 81 and 82, and two illustrations were used as well (the "erasing faces" panel and the injury-to-the-eye panel).

My one-and-done GGA book? That’s easy. Art by one of the two best GGA artists of the Golden Age (the other being Frazetta). Iconic cover that helped define the genre even before the phrase “GGA“ was ever uttered. And for me, of course, there is the added bonus that it happens to be a prominent Seduction of the Innocent book.

Yes, you are right. I just did the same thing. I had multiple submissions for multiple tiers (including Standard, Modern and Economy). I packed them in a single box (with the appropriate packing slips attached to each bundle insider the larger box). After grading, I received the comics in multiple shipments, by tier.

When you say price, are you looking to buy one, or to find out what you might get if you sold one? Either way, condition is all-important. A high-grade copy that's nearly flawless on very close inspection would sell as a collectible. A lesser copy with handling wear would be likely to sell only for its value as reading material. If you are looking to buy a copy, I recommend looking on eBay or at a large retailer with a good reputation such as MyComicShop.com. I see copies available on eBay for $15. Just search "Bart simpson's pal milhouse" in collectibles->comics. If you want to sell yours, searching eBay sold items will give you an idea what they sell for at retail. I see that one copy sold recently for $1.04 plus shipping, and others have sold for about $15. That tells me that somebody who needs to buy a copy immediately is likely to pay $15 for it, but somebody who's willing to wait for a less expensive one can get it for much less. If you sold yours on eBay, it's unlikely you'd get more than $15, and highly likely you'd get a lot less than that.

If the comics you inherited are from the 1970's or later, which I suspect they are, that's a huge clue that this is not authentic. I don't believe there has ever been a collection of 1970's (or newer) comics that had as its only "Golden Age" (1930's-1950's) comic book the first Batman comic book. So that's a clue, but dot definitive. There is something that is definitive in what you wrote, though. You used the term "oversized" which tells me right away that it's a reprint and not an original. Comic books in 1939 had more pages than they do today, and were a little bit wider, but in general they were about the same size as today's comics. I take your term "oversized" to mean 10" x 13 1/2". In the 1970's, there were reprints of some important comics from the 1930's and 1940's, such as the first Superman comic book and this one, the first Batman comic book. Although these are for the most part exact reprints of their predecessors, they are much larger. The reprints are 10" by 13 1/2". The reprints were issued with stiff outer covers that clearly identified them as reprints, but over the years many people have removed the outer covers in hopes that they could convince somebody that their reprint is an original. The reprint with the outer cover removed, such as yours, has virtually no collector's value. Search eBay sold listings for "Famous First Edition Detective 27" to see how much the reprint sells for with its outer cover intact. The following link has additional information about identifying an original Detective Comics #27. http://www.bipcomics.com/showcase/fakes/index27.php So it's not an authentic Detective Comics #27, but it's still fun to sit down and read what Batman was like when he was first introduced. Enjoy!

No. My advice is always: if you are not familiar with a collectible, do not try to buy and sell it at a profit. Collect what you like. And in doing so, you will learn what the market is. Then, if you want to buy and sell things that you are familiar with, go right ahead. When people start buying and selling collectibles with which they are not very familiar, it rarely ends well.

I just re-read this part more carefully. A large percentage of book store owners don't know a lot about comic books, just as a large percentage of comic book store owners don't know much about collectible books. If somebody owns a used book store and they don't specialize in comics as at least one of their product lines, then you can probably expect an offer of less than a dollar per comic (perhaps only a nickel or a dime per). It's not that they're trying to rip you off. They simply aren't familiar with the collectible comic book market, and they look at your comics as inexpensive reading material that they'll throw in a box and offer at a similarly cheap price of a buck or two. If you want serious offers for your comics as collectibles, then you need to make sure you're talking with somebody who knows the collectible comic book market. If you walk into the book store and they have dozens of boxes of collectible comics, plus some on display that sell for, say $100 or more, then there's a good chance your book dealer is familiar with the comic book market. If the book store has just a small box of comics for $1, then they don't focus on collectible comics and it's unlikely they will make you the best offer.

How much will a dealer offer? The question is not much different from saying "how much will a mechanic charge me to fix this thing on my car" or "how much will a lawyer charge me to handle this case." In other words, the answers will vary widely from person to person. Somebody who really wants an extremely high demand book (or books) that you are offering could offer you more than 50%. However, somebody who doesn't have much of a market for the books you are offering might offer as little as a nickel a book. You picked a good starting point. Look at eBay to determine what people are actually paying if you sell your items individually. Remember that, as revat pointed out, only the SOLD items are actually useful. All other pricing is wishful thinking on the part of sellers, and it's useless to you. Then, shop around and get at least three offers from people who sell comics a lot. If there aren't three dealers in your area, you could take photos and send them, with a list, to some big dealers. After you have three offers on the table, determine whether you want to go through the time and effort to sell the books on eBay or some other platform yourself. Although this could net you somewhere around 80% of the eBay sold price after fees & expenses, I don't recommend it because it's a LOT of work. Judging by your question, it sounds like you may have already ruled that out. Your other option is to sell the books to the person or store whose offer you liked best.

It would be really tempting, if I were to see that book offered for sale, to offer $350 for it. If I bought the book, I'd say I'm not happy with the grade and I want $100 back...

I had thought the image matched the ARP Films promo print in the NYT piece, but as I look closer I see it's a variation of a group shot that Sinnott has done on more than one occasion. Note that in the ARP Films print in the NY Times article, there are three non-Marvel characters in the middle of the print. In this variation, labeled by the website www.Tellshir.com as an ARP Films promotional print, those characters are not present, and neither is Spider-Woman. http://tellshiar.com/pictures.html

The original image was created by Joe Sinnott. In this New York Times article, you can see Joe showing off a print of the image, cropped at the bottom, in his portfolio. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/02/nyregion/spider-man-and-his-inker-wrists-still-going-strong-a-half-century-later.html It's hard to tell the size of your art. If that's a chair leg in the background, then I'm guessing the art is maybe 3 feet by 6 feet. Is that right? If it's a 3'x6' reproduction of a Joe Sinnott paining by mechanical means or by an artist other than Sinnott, then it's probably not worth a lot. My opinion is that somebody may be willing to pay $100 for a large image like that. However, if it can be authenticated as an original painting that Joe Sinnott himself painted by hand, then it would sell for good money. It's hard to put a specific number on "good money", because I haven't bought original art in a while and I found nothing comparable on HA.com's list of completed auctions. My best guess would be that it would sell at auction for between $1,000 and $5,000, but somebody who is familiar with the current original art market would be able to give you a better idea of the value.

CGC certifies signatures only when the signing is witnessed by CGC. So the answer is no, they will not certify the signature.