divad

You don't get to choose

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

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 . . .

That is pretty much the assumption I have been making. In part, I posted this book to get some reactions to the signature. Like I said, it is the only signed book I own and I'm no expert. But, it did come from Sothebys and they did call it out as a Kirby signature in the catalog.... Maybe a lawsuit.... Just kidding! Anyway, thanks for all the input everybody! Yet another Sotheby's "certification"

I think I've got a book he signed somewhere. I'll take a look and see if I can dig it up. That does look sweet, tho. Thanks - I did a Google search for examples of Jack's signature, and there are a couple of interesting things to note: 1) In every instance Jack uses lower case letters, not block print capitals. First hand, I know this isn't conclusive, as I myself switch between them when writing (hey, I'm left-handed - give me a break!) But when I sign my name, I almost exclusively use -script. 2) The end of Jack's "J" doesn't come up and around, but consistently points downward. That being said, there appear to be a an equal number of similarities, although those are significant variations. This may be why CGC doesn't make a forensic judgment, and gives such books a qualified label, right?

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?

Some very nice pick-ups!!! I know you've seen it before, but I can't resist adding my copy here (if it's ok wit-you)

fussy, fussy I'm not complaining, but would like to see the pics. You going to step up and e-mail them? Hey! I'm workin' here!

fussy, fussy

One photo has the 91 rarest DCs on it. The second has me standing in front of the display. The third has just 40 Golden Age keys on it. I hope someone can convert them to 150kbs, because I'm aching to find out if ANYONE can identify all 91 in the first pic. I don't think anyone can. But I'm longing to find out. Send them to me at divadrabnud@yahoo.com and I'll host them for you.

:roman salute to chest: you are very welcome Chris

The VF 8.0 Luke Cage #1 is not "midgrade." . . . especially to hobgob

nope

What I have seen is two comics printed one month apart, stored in the same box right next to each other for 20 years, where one has OW-W pages and the other one is approaching CR-OW. I think that there was enough variance in paper chemical content from roll to roll of newsprint that it would not be uncommon for books stored in adverse environmental conditions to degrade at different rates. If this is true of comics printed a month apart, I can't see why it wouldn't be true of comics printed a decade apart. I don't think you can draw any conclusion from this set of "facts"

and some Creepy's and some Famous Monsters and some Savage Tales . . .

Uh yeah...good call $666.66 for VF 8.0...That is One Solid Price -bounty You guys got me started in mags! I'm already jonesin' for another Vampi #1

Thank you, my Man!

I don't remember seeing that one on Saturday. Too much vino!

Zee - let me get this straight . . . You read Dracula Lives to a 15-month old? What next?

I was you being mean to the newbie (calling him illiterate)! Not nice! Oh, OK I thought you were ing my aversion to moderns! I hope he knows I was If not, him

BTW, I coined the term "spine crack" and I'm not a modern wimp!! But I do want credit if the term catches on. Zip, you know I wasn't referring to your zipness Oh and btw, what part were you ing?

Excuse me gents, but that describes a major flaw . . . Not if he's talking about spine crack... that is, the white cracking/flecking that occurs on moderns along the spine where the cover is folded. I have 9.8s that have light flecking along the spine where it's folded. This is most common on heavy paperstock and highly varnished covers. I wouldn't expect a newbie to know, but Diva, haven't you seen this topic any of the 100 or so times it's been discussed in the last year? Yes, but I can't help it if he's illiterate. The description he gives doesn't sound like what the modern wimps refer to as "spine crack". Frankly, I couldn't give a rat's about any book after 1975 . . .

Excuse me gents, but that describes a major flaw . . . It depends on the extent of the cracking along the spine. If it's bad, it's a major flaw. But if it's just the typical, minor edge cracking you see on Ultimate books, it doesn't get marked down all that much. We can only judge by what he says . . . and he says it has an, "imaginary (white) line dividing the front cover and the back . . . from wear" Doesn't sound like "cracking along the spine" at all You made your point counsellor, now pay attention to the witness!