Mr. Zipper

I think the Night Nurse is fine. A tired Stan sig appropriate for that time frame.

I've been studying and collecting Stan Lee signatures for many years. I would not want this one in my collection.

Midgrade book, but I think a C&P would significantly improve eye appeal by brightening up the white areas, which have a lot of surface soiling that should clean up nicely.

Pressing may help eye appeal, but won't help the chip out of the top edge and the creases at the bottom FC, which would limit it to 7.5/8.0 IMO.

I'm going to go for 3.0. It's a borderline 3.5 IMO, but the stains on back and migrated staple rust will keep it at 3.0.

And further, I'm surprised CGC green labels this for a store stamp. That is what the box is intended for. How is it any different than a date stamp, which CGC allows up to 9.8 if it is "small and unobtrusive," according to the CGC Guide to Grading Comics. I'd argue that if the stamp is neatly applied and in the area intended for the stamp, it meets that qualification.

Have you had any luck finding a donor book? In the case of DD #1, I assume the donor was slabbed and likely sold not that far in advance of when the switch appeared. Or is that a bad assumption?

Assuming the book is around 5.0, I don't think the writing will further reduce grade.

I have an early issue of Superman with this notation. It appears to be a pinhead smear of glue over a small edge tear. It really doesn't fix / restore anything, so I presume that is why it doesn't get a purple label.

Thanks, Joseph. I have a lot of respect for your work and don't mean to diminish it. And clearly this matter is at a different level than most past issues. Frankly, I stopped following this thread closely because of the inevitable useless side comments, wild speculation and other typical message board noise. So, I probably have missed critical information. Some of the issues in the past were certainly tempests in a teapot, yet there were people running around with their hair on fire scolding anyone who wasn't also hammering the panic button. That is why I quoted "scandals," not because I live in Saratoga, NY.

I believe this is likely accurate and makes the most sense. As I wrote some time ago, he was in over his head, messed things up and hid it. Maybe hoping the day would come when he would be able to fix what he messed up. And clearly the fees for restoration were not put into "escrow." So, it may have been a defacto ponzi scheme, whether that was the intent or not. I admit this situation has been troubling for me personally. I have never been "friends" with Mike, but chat board acquaintances for many years and I enjoyed the occasional chats. I sent him books for pressing and never had an issue. We were friends on Facebook, but it appears he unfriended me. When trouble first perked up last year, I thought there was no way he would do anything intentionally wrong. He simply made mistakes, had health problems, but he would work through it and right the ship. It's been heartbreaking to see how this has developed because I knew the human side of him to a small degree. To me, he wasn't just an avatar on a chat board. In any case, I continue to hope that the victims get their books back. They are foremost in my thoughts. And I do hope that Mike is held accountable, but can bounce back and resume what was once a healthy, happy life.

This is pretty much how every "scandal" has played out since the beginning of these boards. And there is always an element that will jump down your throat if you aren't running around with your hair on fire like they are. Of course this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed and CGC needs to do better. That said, the sun is shining, the birds are singing, and 99.9999% of the world carries on blissfully unaware of the apocalypse some are enduring over this issue. This, too, shall pass.

The point of noting Flash as an "outlier" was because it's the only known item that turned into a problem dating back to the beginning of his practice. Other than that "outlier," his record was spotless for a decade. All the other problems are from the last few years. I'm not angry about anything, but I believe in fairly and accurately representing the situation. People making accusations that it has been a long con since the beginning are simply not accurate and there is no evidence to support it. Unless of course, you wish to count the Flash 1 situation as evidence of a long con, which I don't. It was likely messed up and damaged, and the way he handled it criminal, but not an intentional long con. Is it a distinction without a difference at this point? Probably. But I have never been a fan of revisionist history and even criminals deserve accurate reporting.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said "not notifying the client" was a bad business decision. I made no excuses for his other behavior. Don't you have another thread where you can be a shrill drama queen?

It's no secret that Mike was a fledgling restorer around 2009. He frequently posted here and at other chat boards about his learning and showed his progress. Over time, his work appeared to be professional quality and he hung up a shingle. And he operated for a decade with no apparent problems and many satisfied customers. The dozens of victims here sent him hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of books because he was trusted and had a good track record. So I don't buy, "it's been a long scam from the beginning." Sounds good on a chat board, but doesn't add up in real life. Granted, the Flash #1 seems to be an outlier. I suspect he was in over his head and made mistakes on the book, and rather than face the music with the client, he sat on it. (A bad business decision among many others.) Interestingly, I was a admin on the CBCA chat board. This was a board where Mike had posted a number of his "learning" posts. I'm guessing about 8 years ago, Mike contacted me and asked me, as an admin, to remove his earlier "experimentation" posts. The reason he gave was his "investors" didn't want his amateur material on the internet.

Three magnets for scammers are: free flowing money, easy marks and low risk of prosecution. Whether it be comics, coins, autographs etc., the collectibles fields have all of this in abundance. Collectors buy emotionally and are often willing to suspend disbelief. Forgers and counterfeiters know they are rarely indicted, let alone convicted. These types of scams are too complex for local DAs and too low on the totem pole for the Feds. It's shocking that it took this long for a significant slab scam to arise.

It's a moot point whether he had coverage or not. Mike's coverage certainly isn't going to reimburse you for his criminal or negligent acts.

I believe "fraudulent, dishonest or criminal acts" refers to acts committed by the policyholder. That said, I suspect that "loss or damage while being worked on by you or others working on your behalf; and mysterious disappearance." clause may exclude you from coverage.

Perhaps you couldn't care less, but its standard practice that companies don't publicly discuss details of ongoing litigation. This is Communications 101. CGC's winning its court cases is in the direct interest of the customers. It's not about vengeance or recovering money, it's about protecting their brand and the integrity of their service, which benefits the customers. Secondly, the information you demand is likely unknown at this time. Do you want correct information, or just any information for the sake of appeasal? I do agree that the information you seek should be shared publicly, but that's after the conclusion of litigation.

This is why I cringe every time some boardie is screaming for CGC to issue updates every five minutes and criticizing because CGC uses words like "approximately" and their statements are not detailed enough. It's common sense that the defense will seek to pick apart every word and use it against CGC. The Nelson interview was probably a mistake. Frankly, they should have issued a very high level statement at the onset and noted that they cannot comment any further because it is an ongoing legal matter. Period.

I am sorry to see this. It's possible this explains the 14 year wait. Your book may have been "broken" soon after receipt. He was in over his head, and rather than face the situation, he sat on it and procrastinated.

In my experience, a Mile High NM is likely a VF. Sometimes you may get lucky and get an actual NM. I suspect the books are "bag graded" at best. With the volume he has, certainly not every book is opened and carefully reviewed for grading.

From the centerfold, the staples look dark. Is that rust? That aside, sweet copy. I think the transverse spine creases are a bit much for the 9.X range. I'd go 8.0/8.5 if there is no rust. Let me know if you are selling.

Fun, but a tough contest. Thanks to Mike and CGC for doing this. I always assume grades are not duplicated in any round. It may have happened once or twice over the years, but generally it doesn't happen. In this contest there were so many times I wanted to give the same grade to more than one book, so I had to force rank them. Overall, this contest was overwhelmingly in the 4.0 - 6.0 range, which was a departure from the past. I think it's actually easier grading a batch of books when the grades vary more... less second guessing for me.

I would think that abrasion on the bottom FC would keep it out of the nine range, but honestly I am seeing 9.Xs from CGC lately that are surprising me. I'd go 8.5, but would not be shocked if CGC went slightly higher.