fantastic_four

At first I thought the buyer of the 9.4 from Pedigree was attempting a flip, but this one on ComicLink is a different copy. There are actually more 9.4 copies of FF #12 than any other issue in the under-#20 run, and it looks like that $76K sale is scaring them out of collections. The real question here is does the person who bid $74K on the one last month think he should jump on this. My guess is that the answer is no, as he could have bid on the $35K one at Pedigree but held out for the one on ComicLink because it had white pages. This one is ow/w like the one at Pedigree, so the answer is almost certainly no, he doesn't want it at this price when he could have had it for up to $25K less. Plus he probably knows the range between his bid at $74K and the third-high bidder was probably quite large, which means he can wait to see if this copy ends up in a future auction where he's likely to get it cheaper than this asking price.

You gonna post the e-mail where he told you this, or should we all just assume you're a lying arsehole?

Lauren already said she was looking through her father's e-mails and couldn't find one where he told you this. Can you copy and paste here the e-mail he sent you to help validate your claim and help her find the correspondence where he said he'd buy those comics once slabbed? Be sure to include the time/date header of the e-mail so she can find it.

He submits books "for" your dad that your dad doesn't even know he has? The guy is off his rocker. Tell your dad to just forget him and ignore it, there's no use in letting the mental imbalances of other people affect your own state of mind.

Bronze Marvels in general have that level of back-to-front miswrap at least a third of the time (spine roll is when you cause that by reading it, which isn't the case here). The printer they were using obviously had at least a 1/4" margin of error on the wrap back then.

Not really. He doesn't appeal to a mass audience due to his darker, more brooding nature, and due to the fact that he's very much a Batman ripoff, albeit with some unique powers thrown in. At least half of the criticisms of the Daredevil film were directly busting on the morose portrayal by Ben Affleck--which I found odd because that's EXACTLY how Matt Murdock always was in the comics. I suspect that some of the less appealling aspects of the Daredevil character is the reason that they haven't tried to reboot another film, although I suspect they eventually will. I like Daredevil myself, have a full run, and have read and collected it since the mid-1980s, but of all the titles I collect, it's the one I expect the least from in terms of general acceptance and therefore market performance.

Anybody know where that #16 came from? I think it's brand new in the latest Census. Easy to assume it's a pressed 9.4, but I really have no clue where it came from.

I picked up these two guys yesterday. I think the 9.4 copy of #12 ran in front of this 9.2 like a bid-blocker, because it went for about 30% less than the last copy. I just noticed too that this 9.2 is like 1/4" wider than the 9.4 above. The 12 cent circle on both copies line up EXACTLY the same with the left edge, yet the 9.2 has nothing cut off on the right side through the Comics Code symbol plus a bit of room to the right side of the "12 MAR." box.

Bizarre that there are three high grade copies of #12 up for sale simultaneously--a 9.4 and a 9.2 on ComicLink and a 9.4 on Pedigree. You can go a year or two without seeing this book in 9.0 or better, and now BLAM, three at once. ComicLink and Pedigree running such packed auctions at the same time, ending within a day or two of each other, seems like it will detract final amounts from both. I guess that's just the way it goes though given that ComicLink runs their auction every single month.

This is the best FF week I've had in 5 years!!! These just in:

Whoa, glad you pointed that out, Mark didn't note that it was Edenwald. Guess I'll try to figure out what the deal with that collection is now.

How do you know it was these exact same copies? GPA has no serial numbers for the sales you're referencing. And yea, the 63 was me -- I don't think a more perfect copy of that issue is possible. Perfect centering, perfect PQ...that issue is tooooo often miswrapped, this is the first nicely wrapped 9.6 I've ever seen, at least from 2000 to 2005 and in 2009, I wasn't even looking from 2006 to 2008.

That's a nice copy of #3. Looks more in the 8.0 to 9.0 range with the right corners dragging it down. Mid-grade books with one or two defects that are fairly easy to ignore are a lot better than mid-graders with twenty defects scattered all over the book...they tend to give the appearance of a higher-grade book than copies with defects all over the place that your eyes can't escape.

Yea, 'twas me. I'm pretty sure this is the second time I've seen that book for sale as I remember the top staple placement; I think it last sold in 2002 or 2003. I considered grabbing the #35 briefly...yours is a page quality upgrade, but I decided to stick with the one I have. He may have to lower his price on the #14, but who knows--these guys paying the big multiples of market value of late may just gobble it up as soon as it blips their radar. I've already got a nice 14 so I won't be going for it.

I heard from Mark this morning--he tells me his new batch of listings is a consignment from someone. I think I snagged a few of them--or so I hope.

Guy's been a dealer for 2 or 3 decades, he probably got these in a trade or just directly from another dealer or collector. I bought the FF 55 in my sig line from him back in 2005 and have bought some of my other FFs from him as well. All he ever buys and sells is nosebleed grades...he bought Schmell's White Mountain CGC 9.4 copies of FF #2 and #5 back in a 2001 MastroNet auction for what seemed at the time like an insane amount and flipped them for probably a far more insane amount.

I believe I'd rather enjoy doing that to my copy as well. For those who haven't seen this movie--the guy above "celebrates" (or more accurately, attempts to release himself from) his obsession with the William Blake painting etched onto his back by duping a curator and eating it in the museum. Quite a love of art!

I can't decide whether or not the conservator was focusing on her response, which makes me wonder how much to trust it. The entire second half of it focuses on the best way to store comics, which isn't something I asked about. I'm sure she was just trying to be helpful, throwing out as much conservation info as she thought of that could be useful to me. But it seems weird for her to have taken the time to include all those links to bags and boards, as if perhaps she had no reference to offer on the danger of heat and moisture pressing so she decided to offer some storage references instead. A pertinent and probing followup into the nature of the danger she's describing with regards to heat and moisture could be useful. You know that some library or company has done pressing-related experiments similar to or the same as the ones people have been proposing in this thread--maybe a LoC conservator would dig some of that up if specifically prodded to.

So I just got a response from the original question I asked the LoC in the first message. I haven't pondered the response enough yet to know whether or not to post a follow-up, which their site explicitly allows for, but here's the response--if anyone knows of a relevant followup, please post it here and I'll likely pass it along. I'm fairly surprised by the response about heat--the conservator who answered seems to generally agree with the "pressing causes permanent damage" hypothesis. If we find reason to agree with this sentiment and the credibility of the response, it may be time to pull Matt Nelson, Tracey Heft, and Susan Cicconi in to comment on this.

Just got this in:

That issue has the best Spidey cover art EVER.

There's a long thread in this forum about the "7-year microchamber tuneup". CGC also had the same reservations about placing the books in a semi-sealed container, which is why they put the microchamber paper in. I don't recall Heft or anyone else having lingering issues with the fact that the paper should keep the comic safe for at least 7 years, but for slabs that have been encapsulated beyond that length of time, your concerns are valid. Which brings up a point--ALL of the old-label slabs have now eclipsed the time period the microchamber paper is expected to be effective for.

I've been specifically looking for evidence of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence being pressed and have been unable to find any. Do you recall where you heard it has been pressed?

By hard creases, you mean ones that break fibers? Those are pressable? I figured fiber-breaking creases were permanent damage. Isn't that what the Pacific Coast Hulk 1 (previously an 8.5, now an 8.0) supposedly has on the back that nobody could press? BTW--WTF happened to that pressing thread you and povertyrow filled up with useful info a few years ago??? They appear to have LOCKED it very recently, and you can't get to it now. ???

Yea a dry mount press sucks for that, but isn't a heated tacking iron better for that than simple pressure?