jimbo_707

From female Timely sidekick to female Timely sidekick.

Blue bows to yellow bow.

Slaves of the Unknown to Slaves under the Sea

Marketing. "From the Collection of Nicolas Cage" - big freakin' deal.

 

It would be if it was the Nicolas Cage copy of Detective Comics #27 Action Comics 1

 

Don't think he owned a Tec 27

 

He actually did. One that was stolen along with his Action Comics 1.

 

I believe there were also rumors that there was a third book that was also apparently stolen at the same time.

 

Not sure why nobody has named this apparent third book, but probably part of the police investigation that they hold back on some details in a criminal investigation in the hopes of identifying the perpetrator later on.

The book was named, but it wasn't an important book. It was a random Marvel Mystery that was worth almost nothing compared to the other two books. The thieves stole the three books that Cage happened to have on display in security frames at the time.

Edited to add: I own one Nic Cage book, and his prior ownership of it had no effect on my max bid.

Fight 20 cover detail

Fight 21 politically incorrect Shark Brodie detail

Catman 26 detail

Sqeggs - I had numerous offers for a prompt flip of this book. I expect one of those same offers went to Jimbo_707 as well. Upon being asked the question, jimbo_707 never denied the accusation. He also did not confirm, but has sidestepped the issue every step of the way by offering red herrings and trying to make an issue of this shipping thing that was never an issue, he offered to pay for shipping.

When I posted yesterday, I had basically decided that I would move forward with the transaction, and I will. I wanted a little more time before publicly eating crow. I received an envelope from William today, and I assume that it contains his check.

The way William's message about shipping was worded didn't sit right with me, and it's what made me feel I was free to back out of the deal, which I've never done before. I felt like he had continued trying to negotiate after we had a deal, and I'm not used to people doing that. Like someone said, I should have replied, "Look at the terms. I'm good with cancelling. You?"

I understand that others will refuse to buy from me now. (This is my fifth sale on the boards in about as many years.)

Well, I have read through the posts, and I've listened to what people have to say. I do respect the opinions of many people on the boards, and some people I respect have clearly expressed that I'm in the wrong.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that it's never OK for a seller to change his mind—especially if money hasn't changed hands yet. Legally, can't either party cancel a sale for any reason or no reason before money changes hands? That's what I have always heard: no consideration=no binding contract.

I need to mull things over for a day or so.

As an aside, I would like people to know why I listed this particular book. I listed it because I decided that I no longer want to collect comics that depict violence against women in a realistic way. I have been extremely distraught lately about a real-life case of violence against a woman in my area, a case that I've been following in the news and through another forum. It is a heartbreaking case. I'm not condemning anyone for collecting crime comics, but there are certain covers that I don't want to look at now.

One thing that we have debated on the boards is how far sellers should go to eat mistakes. When I priced the book, I tried to base it in large part on what I had paid myself, multiplied by x. I realized later that I had used the wrong amount. I mixed up the prices of two books that I had bought from the same dealer right around the same time. The book should have been priced higher, no question. I have eaten mistakes like that before, more than once, on a smaller scale, usually for the sake of good will.

The buyer had certainly seen the "+ actual shipping costs" in the original listing, so the wording of the note struck me as disingenuous. The note did not motivate me to want to eat a large pricing mistake for the sake of good will.

For the record, I would never cash someone's check and not ship a book.

Also, if ghosting means abandining the boards, I obviously haven't ghosted. I also haven't sold the book.

While not the sole reason for my decision, there was something that bothered me very early on in my interaction with ComicCav. The listing stated, after the price, "+ actual shipping costs." The attached image shows the response that I received when I asked what shipping method he preferred and whether he wanted insurance.

The tone of the message made me uncomfortable. It is what started me thinking about whether I wanted to go through with the transaction with this particular board member. From what I remember, no other prospective buyer has tried to pressure me to throwing in free shipping after the fact. It wasn't about the dollar amount; the book could probably be shipped from Michigan to Illinois for $15, maybe less.

ComicCav knows that the deal is off. I made the decision not to proceed for valid reasons. As much as I would like to defend my position publicly, ComicCav has mentioned getting attorneys involved, so I can't discuss the matter in detail.

CLOSED

 

When you pair it with this Cookeville that I bought at an LCS in that town, I've got a mini-run of Cookeville Sandman covers.

 

1.0? Is the spine badly split or something? It sure presents nicer than that.

Here's a much beloved and all too little seen character:

 

52

 

 

Here's another.

The early Andy Panda stories were great. (Maybe Lantz wrote the early ones himself; I'm not sure.)

I think restored books clearly have a place in our hobby. There are books out there that I could never own, but at a typical discount of up to 50% or more on moderate or extensive makes it a bit more attainable.

Up to 50%? I think you mean at least 50%. (You did say "or more.") I routinely see restored books sell for much less than half of what an unrestored copy would sell for. Offhand I'd say a discount of 70%-90% is the norm, although there might not be as big of a difference with very low grade books.

Maybe this will fly, maybe not. Let's give it a whirl:

 

-- I love classic precode horror covers, but for whatever reason I don't share the extreme love for Fight Against Crime #20 as reflected in its selling prices. To me the cover is more zany or goofy than horrific.

 

-- I don't enjoy looking at Jack Kirby's GA artwork. I respect that he's a founding father of the industry, but I just don't dig it at all.

 

-- For that matter, aside from the great Schomburg covers, I'm not a fan of GA Captain America either. If I'm going after GA patriotic heroes I prefer the MLJ Peps and Zips.

 

-- I'd rather have a bright, vividly-colored 1.5 GA book with a detached cover wrap than an 8.0 book with dulled colors but amazing structural soundness. (Not talking about *faded* books, which is an easier call... just books with naturally weak colors, like a good many Fiction House, Fox etc.)

 

 

OK, that's what I've got so far. Who's next?

 

As a collecter who started with coins, then sports cards, and now exclusively comics....I couldn't care less about artwork. I couldn't care less about the story inside. I collect first appearances of characters....and that's it. How's that for an unpopular opinion? But to me it makes perfect sense. You don't collect coins or sports cards because of how how the picture looks or what the writing is. Why comics??

I used to collect coins in addition to comics, and I collected those very much for the artwork. I only dabbled in baseball cards as a kid, but I know people who built certain sets of cards (1962 Topps, for instance) specifically because they liked the artwork on the cards for that year.

I couldn't care less about first appearances; that's an unpopular opinion too, I reckon.

I do think it makes sense. The main reason to doubt this explanation is that the discovery of printer file copies from multiple publishers seems like it would have been a big enough deal that the story of the discovery would be well known.

 

But, then, I guess that doubt could be raised about any explanation. Whatever they are and wherever they came from, whoever brought them to market must have realized he had gotten his hands on quite a treasure trove. Unless the OO or his family sold them off slowly over time to multiple dealers in a way that didn't attract notice.

When did they come to market? If they were sold off before the pedigree craze, it's possible that neither the seller or the dealer thought much of bringing the collection to market.

I would not assume that the "Int" notation dated to the time of distribution. For instance, if the books were sold at an antique market or co-op, the code could have indicated which seller was entitled to get credit for the books because those places often have multiple dealers who take turns watching the shop. That was a common practice here in Michigan by the late 80s (and maybe earlier).

It's possible, though, that the books from a single collection might be the only surviving copies to have been handled by a small distributor, so the "Int" could have been a distributor's mark.

I could see the "Int." meaning a couple of things at a bindery. It could have meant that the interior of a book had been checked or needed to be checked; it could have meant that the copy was the bindery's internal copy, as opposed to a copy or copies to be sent back to the publisher.

Not sure if these are unpopular opinions, but let's air them and find out.

 

Sub-Mariner is a boring character. A guy in swimming trunks who swims. Why should I waste a dime on that?

 

Agree with you about Subby, absent the great Schomburg covers and Everett art, he's a bore, and I've found few Superman stories from any Era worth reading.

 

I actually think restored books are better off raw, where you don't have a label distracting from their appeal.

 

For me, Sub-Mariner is probably the single most interesting character of the Golden Age. One of the major issues of our times is the way civilization has exploited and destroyed the natural world, including the oceans, and Subby was a champion of the oceans. He might have been the first comic book anti-hero. I find many of the covers from the Sub-mariner run somewhat boring, but the character is anything but.

 

 

 

Conceptually I'm with you - he was distinctly an anti-hero in the early stories, but the idea was little explored beyond the basic Subby shows up to wreak havoc storylines.

I know how we can settle this, if you can help me out. I just need you to get Vern (podboy) to sell me his Okajima copy of Subby 32 so I can read the stories in it. You can tell Vern I'll give him the full Overstreet value for the book!!! IF you can make that happen and IF the stories are no good, I'll publicly concede that Subby is an uninteresting character.

 

Now that's a great Subby wreaks havoc cover!

Not sure if these are unpopular opinions, but let's air them and find out.

 

Sub-Mariner is a boring character. A guy in swimming trunks who swims. Why should I waste a dime on that?

 

Agree with you about Subby, absent the great Schomburg covers and Everett art, he's a bore, and I've found few Superman stories from any Era worth reading.

 

I actually think restored books are better off raw, where you don't have a label distracting from their appeal.

 

For me, Sub-Mariner is probably the single most interesting character of the Golden Age. One of the major issues of our times is the way civilization has exploited and destroyed the natural world, including the oceans, and Subby was a champion of the oceans. He might have been the first comic book anti-hero. I find many of the covers from the Sub-mariner run somewhat boring, but the character is anything but.

 

Conceptually I'm with you - he was distinctly an anti-hero in the early stories, but the idea was little explored beyond the basic Subby shows up to wreak havoc storylines.

I know how we can settle this, if you can help me out. I just need you to get Vern (podboy) to sell me his Okajima copy of Subby 32 so I can read the stories in it. You can tell Vern I'll give him the full Overstreet value for the book!!! IF you can make that happen and IF the stories are no good, I'll publicly concede that Subby is an uninteresting character.

Not sure if these are unpopular opinions, but let's air them and find out.

 

Sub-Mariner is a boring character. A guy in swimming trunks who swims. Why should I waste a dime on that?

 

Agree with you about Subby, absent the great Schomburg covers and Everett art, he's a bore, and I've found few Superman stories from any Era worth reading.

 

I actually think restored books are better off raw, where you don't have a label distracting from their appeal.

For me, Sub-Mariner is probably the single most interesting character of the Golden Age. One of the major issues of our times is the way civilization has exploited and destroyed the natural world, including the oceans, and Subby was a champion of the oceans. He might have been the first comic book anti-hero. I find many of the covers from the Sub-mariner run somewhat boring, but the character is anything but.

I know I'm gonna get beat up for these top 9 nominations, but

 

Weird Tales of the Future #8 is a pretty silly amateur art cover

 

Weird Mysteries #5 is an even bigger mystery as to why such a cheesy cover is so popular.

 

Mask 1??? Why?? Mask 2 is by far the better, brighter more artistic cover

 

Mister Mystery 12 .. dumb

 

Mister Mystery 11 ..Just as dumb and it doesn't help have the mystery dude in a little circle on every book.

 

Dynamic #8 would actually be the best cover ever if it weren't for the name "DYNAMIC" at the top. It throws the whole book off

 

Black Cat #50 crappy art

 

Horrific #3 Really? Who drew the cover? a 9 year old?

 

And lastly (this will probably get me banned from the forum) Crime Suspenstories 22.. There are tons of cooler EC covers than that book. I dunno, maybe if it showed guts and nerve endings dangling from her bloody stump?? Then I'd probably dig it more

oh! We should start a poll of lamest GA cover books. That'd actually be neat

 

I wouldn't argue with you on most points, but Black Cat 50 is really a great image, and CSS 22 has such a tremendous historical value as well as being over the top. Read "10 Cent Plague" and you'll realize how that cover in particular changed the entire history of comics.

No argument on the historical impact of CSS 22, but I don't see what you're seeing if you think the cover Black Cat 50 is a great image. It looks very sloppy and amateurish to me.

I am just going to say it. I think Startling 49 is a way over rated book. The robot looks pretty lame. I am not sure if it is suppose to be a scary cover, funny cover, or just lame cover.

 

I think I'm going to agree with this one...

I agree. But since Heritage chose to put it on the front cover of their catalog, the Church copy will probably sell for a small fortune.

Of course, it will probably sell for half as much next time, but there is a definite bandwagon mentality prevalent among collectors, even long-time collectors who should know better.

I think Schomburg is kind of overrated.

 

10% or so of his covers are legit classics and are amazing, but the remainder all kind of run together for me. Overly detailed and jumbled with a similar color palette and theme.

I'm a fan of Schomburg's work based on his early pulp-like covers; he was hot and cold with his later Timely covers. Most of his non-Timely covers look like he didn't give a rat's behind about the quality of his work. (Maybe he didn't get paid much for those and didn't take as much pride in them or put as much time into them.)

I probably shouldn't say this because I haven't completed my run yet, but the Fight Comics run has some of the best WWII covers. I do already have a nice copy of my favorite cover:

There are no Copper Age or Modern Age books that are undervalued right now. By the mid 70's, people were buying books to hoard more than they were buying them to read, so there is a massive surplus of all mainstream titles from that time period. Of course, a movie deal about an independent-press character could be a game changer.