divad

No argument here - the production quality of the books changed significantly also. What's interesting to me is you can pick up any book and in 20 seconds or less, assign an "age" to it.

I feel like the bronze age ended with DD 181 These all coincide with something I feel is very overlooked in terms of comic history, and that's Stan Lee leaving Marvel Comics in 1981 to run the TV/movie studio arm (leaving Jim Shooter in charge of Marvel), along with Jenette Kahn taking over DC the same year, which eventually led to Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman and Vertigo. Because we now had two totally different people running the two largest comic book publishers, it's no coincidence that things changed at Marvel and DC circa 1981, and fast. Creator royalties, a massive mini-series explosion, more adult themes and stories, etc. Shooter even got rid of the No Prize. DD 181, in retrospect is a great ending. Notwithstanding JC's added comments.

CGC could easily be wrong about the date of the 2nd printing . . . anyone with a copy want to check indicia dates (which can be easily misread or misprinted in later prints. Also check the column dates and ad dates, etc. Interesting enough, both the first printing and second printing state March 1990. But when you check the copyright year, a first printing will show 1990, while a second printing shows 1991. So clearly, it wasn't released (published until 1991). There is no requirement for it to be re-registered, but the most current copyright year is always entered as a precautionary measure. CGC is in error by just repeating the original release date on the label. The CGC label date for the third printing of IH 377 is Jan 1991, the same as the first print, even though we know that the release date was at least two years later.

From the US Copyright Office:

CGC could easily be wrong about the date of the 2nd printing . . . anyone with a copy want to check indicia dates (which can be easily misread or misprinted in later prints. Also check the column dates and ad dates, etc.

Yes, most unfortunate back cover.

Marvel Two-in-One #5

Shark, You may want to change your re line back to: "CGC Members eBay Items For Sale With Links" . . . Who's the Mumford Comics spammer and why is he posting in this thread?

Depending upon several factors: the indicators in the book now (as to staple replacement) such as rust, staining or obvious physical modifications, the matching qualities and condition of the new centerfold, and the condition of the existing staples and/or replacement staples; I believe there is a remote chance that the work could be done (by a professional) such that it would be undetectable. That's a whole lot of "ifs" however. I don't think there would be a grade bump. The Green label alone accounted for the staple replacement and missing centerfold in the original submission. I think a grade bump is definitely possible. Reading over the posts again, I agree. There should be some merit given to the book being complete vs. incomplete. (thumbs u

The donut is better than Google images . . .

So then you do agree that from 1984-up newsstand copies ARE rarer than their direct market counterparts? Btw, seriously, are you brain dead? Where is my name in the above?

As if that makes a difference. I'm gonna go read some funny books. Like I said,it's your thread - have at it.

Spew away RMA, you're in control. Anyone who preaches the gospel of greed by posting a Fox News Interview of Milton Friedman has no empathy for anyone or anything.

Yes, the one right above. Now who's demeaning whom?

So then you do agree that from 1984-up newsstand copies ARE rarer than their direct market counterparts? I hope that just about anyone can see that the above is pure conjecture. RMA hasn't cited a single fact which supports these conclusions. In fact, he even deleted his "supposition" disclaimer in the original post.

The ironic thing in the original discussion is that, perhaps the major reason I stopped buying comics in 1976 was someone's silly idea to put a barcode on the front of the comic. There was absolutely no reason this couldn't have been put on the back of the comic.

No, you don't Saying he's wrong and expecting everyone to believe you, based solely on your word with no supporting evidence, does nothing to move the discussion forward. He, at least, has cited some sources. You have cited nothing. Actually, I do. I agree with your points completely. Except for this last one. I don't expect anything.

I completely understand. (thumbs u

C'mon David, you're really not helping here The thread was actually interesting before RMA comes on and says this thread is a hoot. Then he spouts alleged facts as though he was actually there. His cites don't support his conclusions, and everyone is duped (because he talks the most). Do you really think that last post is any more than self-aggrandizing conjecture? I don't have the time or the spirit to disagree with him. He can win all the time (it seems he needs to).

Great stuff, fast and well-packed - Awesome! (thumbs u

Mods notified . . .

My postman does just the same - I have lost count of how many books have been folded to mail through the letter box. Even some that are labelled "do not bend". I have started smiling things to my work address! Did you forget to tip him at Christmas???