divad

Nice! I took a look at that one myself, but passed after I saw the woeful conversion rate.

 

Thanks! Well, I knew I wasn't going to be out-bid by you . . .

 

 

You are right, no fear of that.....I don't bid on auctions where I will end up overpaying.

None of that here . . .

Nice! I took a look at that one myself, but passed after I saw the woeful conversion rate.

Thanks! Well, I knew I wasn't going to be out-bid by you . . .

Picked up this puppy this morning:

I am sure it's going to look MUCH better in person

After being outbid on the Don Rosa copy, I settled for this copy for less than 1/3 the price . . .

Wow. That is one NICE book. Congrats. I would buy one myself, but that would blow my comic budget for a good two decades.

Thanks, my wife wasn't entirely thrilled . . . her response: bad boy!

Wow! That's the stuff of nightmares!

Where is the scan of the JiM 89

I haven't scanned it myself yet, but here's the seller's scan:

Whaddya think?

I think I'm gonna crack it out and caress it

Wow! That's the stuff of nightmares!

Just came back from sunny Sarasota.

 

 

NOW we're talkin'

Kudos to Comicsupply for some great supplies and comics! Thanks again for the contest.

 

Ditto!

The Fullbacks showed up today!

 

Only 3 days with the slowest shipping!

So Daddy BigBucks - you selected camel service?

I thought my note would be read in jest. I think its kind of funny and sort of a treat.

Awe I get all weepy when one of you guys goes all lawyer on the boards.

Jbud - Welcome back! Long time no see

Looks like comics.org looks at the CGC boards. They used my image of Richie Rich 1 .... and without my permission no less.

 

http://comics.org/covers.lasso?SeriesID=12658

Hey ft,

A point for discussion: You may have some rights to your scans, but probably not for the reasons you think you do. For example, just because you own the book, you don't have any inalienable rights to photographs of it. The creator of the book holds those rights. Your scans, are of course "photographs" of the book, which you created and therefore, you have copyrights to those photographs. Arguably, they are junior, derivative rights to the creator of the book. One might argue that you actually need permission from the creator of the book to publish your photographs.

Either way you slice it, even if you have copyrights, you have no means of enforcing your copyrights, or to enjoin others from using your scans, unless you take steps to register the copyright of the photographs with the Copyright Office. And, if someone actually made the scans for you, as in a "work for hire" the issue is even complicated further. For example, the scans CGC provides with its grading service are technically "works for hire" with CGC being the author of the scans.

Front cover

 

Back cover

lookin' good there, bubba!

congrats!

So which side of Aluminum foil should I use?

 

And no it's not for making a pointy hat.

 

Actually a lot of people don't know the answer to this either. You should place food against the dull side of the foil.

I really didn't know this. What is the harm from the shiny side. Fortunately I'm not the one that uses it.

There is no "harm" - the shiny side reflects the radiant heat better.

So which side of Aluminum foil should I use?

 

And no it's not for making a pointy hat.

Common boards acidify in less than two years - Pull anyone of your old TOS's that you have stored in poly/common. See the brown specks on the shiny side of the board? That's acidification - That deteriorates the book. Either way you lose

The only alternative is to spend the money (sorry kilty)

Thus, the shiny side appears to be the "non-acidic" side of the back board, while the dull side appears to be quite acidic by comparison.

 

Thanks for the test, but I never understood why it was even in doubt.

 

After all, why in the world would standard backing board manufacturers spend MORE to treat one side of the board, if you weren't actually *supposed* to use it?

Uh, because they're from Canada? Is this a trick question?

As many of you know, the eternal question among comic collectors who don't want to incur the cost of calcium carbonate buffered back boards is, "Do I put my comics against the shiny side or the dull side?" Many times this has been debated, with no clear answer.

 

Well, now there's an answer. I recently bought a pH detection pencil and used it on two back boards. The back boards are relatively new, having been purchased within the last six months or so from Russ at comicsupply.com. I followed the instructions that came with the pencil and tested the pH levels on the shiny side of a back board that I pulled out of the middle of a a previously unopened ream of back boards and on the dull side of the back board that was right next to the first one I pulled from the middle of the stack.

 

For those who don't know, on the pH scale, a lower number means that the item is more acidic and a higher number means that it is less acidic (alkaline). A pH reading of 7 means that the item is neutral, neither acidic nor alkaline.

 

I don't know how well these colors will show up on your monitor, but by my eyeballing the color scale, the dull side registered a pH of approximately 5, and the shiny side registered a pH of about 7 to 7.5. Thus, the shiny side appears to be the "non-acidic" side of the back board, while the dull side appears to be quite acidic by comparison. So, if you've been putting your books against the dull side of non-buffered back boards, you've got your books on the wrong side!

Unfortunately, the entire board is placed within a virtually sealed bag, which then off-gasses acid in a closed environment - I seriously doubt it matters which side is in actual contact with the book, as the entire environment is acidic.

Just throw 'em away Kilty

A little bit of knowledge can be dangereous . . .

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Scott- I've never seen an example of one . . .

Tanning and page color will hurt you, but if it is still a structurally sound and supple book . . . 9.0 cream to off-white

Until we can see a valid sampling of know authentic exemplars, I'd label this signature, "Undetermined."

 

Here is the Kirby sig that I got from the King at the NY Comic Con in 1975. It does appear to flow a bit more than the sig on the FF2, but looks very similar (especially the "K"), and may have a different look owing to being on the splash page rather than the cover:

Thanks - this is similar to what I found through a web search. Although, It's not what's "similar" about a signature that counts in forensic analysis, it's what's "dissimilar". Again we see lower case -script, not block lettering.

Thanks Pov,

A few of questions:

If this book gets sent into CGC, would it receive a qualified grade?

Unauthenticated creator signatures on the cover get a Green Qualified Label.

Would CGC authenticate the signature?

No, he's dead. They only authenticate signatures that are signed in front of a CGC rep.

Or would it just say "Jack Kirby written in ink on cover"?

No, not even. They may put a label note on "name written in ink on front cover"

If they don't authenticate the signature, then doesn't it become "automatically" valid once encapsulated?

I don't see your logic there, Dan

Well, it's for sure they would not accept the signature as authentic. They would never do that, so that's out for sure. I think they might give you a choice of what you want. A universal label with the sig taken into consideration as a defect or a qualified label with it not taken into account as a defect.

You don't get to choose

4.5 sounds about right . . . but, are you sure that's Jack's sig? Looks a little too neat to me -- can anyone chime in here?

 

Well, I didn't want to say anything, but since you've chimed in already.

 

My first reaction was that the signature wasn't authentic. I'm no court expert, but I have been collecting autographs for over 15 years, written numerous articles, serve on the UACC Ethics Board, have done authentications for dealers and auction houses... so I have a pretty good eye for picking out fakes.

 

There are a number of problems with this signature in regard to formation. Further, the signature has a "slowly drawn" and heavy appearance that you don't see in authentic Kirby signatures. It doesn't "flow" like a naturally signed name does.

 

While I can't say definitively it is not authentic, I think the chances are high that it is a forgery. If it was mine, I would operate under the presumption the signature is not authentic.

 

If it is a fake, perhaps the forger thought it would be a good way to squeeze a few extra bucks out of a lower grade book.

 

Thanks Zip( oops!), my thoughts exactly

Personally I couldn't imagine any body falsely putting a signature on that comic. Maybe I'm just naive.

Here’s a bit of reasoning. If this comic was autographed at it’s inception I could see Jack as a young proud artist and he would like a signature with more flair then his normal sig. This would account for the heavy look zipper68 mentioned. As time went on and signing books became more commonplace for him he relaxed and signed like his normal sig.

I'll say it's a bit - and, just a bit at that Jack was, by no means, a "young proud artist" in 1962 - he was already a seasoned pro . . .