Mr. Zipper

Oh, I did. LOL Big Sharpie "WK" on every side, top and bottom.

Last week I submitted a few books at the Walk Through level. After reading the announcement last year, I thought they were "on time" with opening submissions. (What's the point of submitting walk through when it could sit unopened for weeks or months?) Hopefully my Walk Through gets opened this month. Anyhow... perhaps CGC should put the brakes on all these private signings until they get their primary business under control. How is it these signings are promised to come back in a reasonable amount of time when ordinary submissions are sitting for months on end? It would seem they have overextended and their priorities are backwards.

BTW... I have nothing against pressing. I get it done selectively. I have used Joe G and Mike DeChellis with good results. What concerns me is that every fly by night Tom, and Harry has hung out a pressing shingle and many of them are incompetents. There are a zillion of them on Facebook. They are frying and squashing books. I buy books on eBay and they arrive like overdone waffles.

This x 100. It's of no use to revisit the argument, the Pressing Industrial Complex clearly won. But it is undisputable that the manufactured definition of "restoration" was convenient for CGC and the big money hobbyists.

Nice looking book. I've always maintained that they should only PLOD books when the "restoration" improves the apparent grade. For instance, you would not plod a low grade book with a small marker color hit. In the lower grades, marker hits and glue would be just part of the accumulation of flaws acceptable in that range. This is a perfect example of that. The color touch did nothing to improve the grade and it was PLOD. Removing the color touch and the book is the same grade.

You're not wrong. But we're human and it's annoying that TATs are what they are and some of it has to be because people are submitting junk like this. These are $3 books. And these are not isolated incidents. It's freaking moronic.

As long as a large number of collectors believe "every book benefits from pressing" and "every comic must be graded," pressers and grading companies will be backed up. Just look at the grading forum here... in almost every single thread, someone suggests cleaning and pressing, even when it's obvious the book has significant flaws that will not be corrected by pressing and will limit the grade. Meanwhile, the graders and pressers are laughing all the way to the bank. Admittedly, I am envious. To have a job where people mindlessly throw tons of money at you.

Assuming the back is consistent with front, 4.5 / 5.0

In video I mention possibly submitting to another company, but they were submitted to CGC. Thoughts?

I’m in. Thanks.

5.0 and pressing won’t raise grade.

4.0

I think 4.5 is optimistic given the long cover crease, multiple corner creases and at least three tears on the back cover along with an accumulation of spine wear. Pressing is not going to raise the grade one iota given the limiting nature of the aforementioned issues. I’d give it 3.5… maybe 4.0.

RE: "To Paul Best Wishes"... I do not believe Jack signed this. Likely a response to a mail request in my opinion.

As of late, James Spence Authentication (JSA) has been solid on Kirby authentication. They have a consultant who knows Kirby fairly well. Unfortunately, that doesn’t help you though if you want it slabbed.

6.0 +/- .5

5.5

Often, if a modern marker hits 50+ year old news print, it may bleed/feather. Not conclusive, but no signs of that. Also, a photo of the inside of the front cover may be telling. The markers from the 70s - 90s would often "halo" over time. If there is a halo-ing effect, you know the sig is at least a few decades old, which would weigh in its favor.

4.5

Presents very nice, but the folded/creased bottom right corner + the soft rounding to the spine corners puts it around 6.5 ... maybe 7.0.

I believe the heavy color breaking spine creases in the middle of the spine will be an issue that keeps it down. 8.0 at best.

Agree. The fact of the matter is, it’s only in the last five or six years that malicious Kirby forgeries have appeared. Prior to that it was a $25 signature that was not on the radar of forgers. (Not counting the proxy/secretary signatures of course.) I’ve been studying and collecting Kirby signatures for sometime now. “Back in the day“ forgeries were not a concern at all.

I believe that writing on cover would fall in the range of acceptable defects for a book in the good range. Thus, blue 2.0-2.5 Green label should only apply to a high grade book with an outlier defect.

Undoubtedly authentic.