Jaydogrules

Very nice copy. -J.

Thanks Gator. -J.

Was the book pressed as well ? Do we know that there were not other "improvements" done that helped the grade? And what is the highest grade a book can have with a split/detached cover? If the answer is higher than 2.5, then that would still render the presence of tape moot, since tape itself is allowable at this low of a grade. -J.

-J.

That kind of "sandbox logic" doesn't mean I'm wrong. -J.

With how grossly inconsistent CGC is in how they divine "PQ", no one can know either way. -J.

I don't know. I explained in detail what can cause edge tanning several pages back. Definitely not going to delve back into that again here. But spider turtle just said his book that says "cream to white pages" on the label has no interior tanning. And FTR, neither does mine. -J.

As long as you understand that there is not necessarily a correlation between the two, (ie one thing does not "cause" the other thing, and/or the presence of one thing does not indicate the presence of the other thing), then we are good. -J.

That's what I thought as well. So if all the tape is doing is re-attaching the cover, and a detached cover is allowed at this grade range, then the tape did not improve the grade here. -J.

What's the highest grade possible for a book with a split/detached cover? -J.

Very nice. Definitely does look does look darn good for its assigned grade. -J.

Come on man, "tanning" has NOTHING to do with the purported "page quality" (paper suppleness) on the label, and the "whiteness" of the paper does not either. At all. As demonstrated by this book with nice bright cover whites, but supposedly "slightly brittle pages" on the inside: http://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=725873 Haven't we been over this enough already? -J.

The "new" rule is that taping a defect will not improve the grade. Whatever the tape is doing, will be ignored. In this case, the tape is re-attaching the cover. But the book is still a 2.5. If there was no tape, the cover would be detached. Books can be as high as a 4.0 with a detached cover, no? Already low grade books with tape, the tape rules are usually moot since most of the defects people would try to use tape to fix are allowable anyway. -J.

Nah. Everyone knows it's always much more fun throwing popcorn from the audience. -J.

Yes and Marvel also received boat loads of additional cash in product placement and tie-ins from Iron Man as well. "Marketing" is not "dollars spent". It's "media value". There is a REASON why that specific terminology is used rather than the other, so don't conflate the meanings. And whatever Sony did actually spend on marketing (TV spots, billboards, etc) was MORE than offset by the aforementioned product placement and tie ins. I won't even get into the additional one billion+ in ancilliaries. This shouldn't even be up for debate. And like I said, since we don't actually know how the details and ins and out of those side deals with promotional partners made, it's probably just best to table that side of the conversation and focus on the info that we do know (like we normally do in every other thread in this sub-forum). And on that end, you and I aren't actually disagreeing about anything. I never said WW didn't make more than Homecoming domestically. But it did underperform internationally compared to almost every other hero film released in the last ten years. And I'm not the only one who says this: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2017/09/21/wonder-woman-is-the-worst-performing-superhero-film-in-overseas-markets-in-a-decade/amp/ It just wasn't as embraced internationally as it was here. Whatever the reasons were, those are the reasons and them's the breaks. I'm sure Warner Bros knew the potential downsides internationally, but don't worry, and as we ended up seeing, it was more than made up for with the hyperactive, foaming at the mouth positive media coverage on the domestic side. Meanwhile the Chinese embargo on American films probably cost Homecoming $20MM-$30MM there. Not chump change. That lost money may end up stopping Homecoming from topping the $900MM milestone and being the highest grossing Spiderman movie ever. But you don't hear Sony, the media, or Marvel fanboys constantly bringing that up as a means to forgive (or excuse) its final totals. And I'm not "bashing" Wonder Woman, I'm using as a point of comparison, just like I've used GOTG 2 and BvS and Suicide Squad. Homecoming made more than ALL of them. Next up is JLA, and its asinine $250MM budget (after re-shoots). If that doesn't end up grossing more than Homecoming, that really will be an embarrassment. Almost as embarrassing as notorious DC hack-boy Scott Mendelson's snarky final BO predictions for Homecoming, circa July 18: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/07/18/spider-man-homecomings-box-office-is-bad-news-for-a-third-hulk/#50c3ac9f320a (Is this really the best person they can find to talk about these things?) -J.

I thought we got that clarified a few pages back. Tell you what- I'll come up with that, right after you come up with something from Sony that says they "spent" $140MM on marketing for Homecoming. Oh wait, you can't, because that's not what actually happened. That assertion is patently false, and borderline laughable. And I think you know better. Unless you also believe Universal "spent" nearly $600MM on the Minions campaign based on reports like this (similar to the one you cited about Homecoming): https://qz.com/450909/593-million-in-marketing-drives-minions-to-a-huge-weekend-at-the-box-office/ Notice the same key phrase there? "Media value"? And where it clarifies that that is NOT "dollars spent". I understand why someone could be a little fuzzy on the distinction though, since most of the articles subsequent to this original Deadline article.....: https://www.google.com/amp/deadline.com/2017/07/spider-man-homecoming-global-promotion-biggest-ever-franchise-media-ad-spend-1202125535/amp/ ....(which discusses the same concept of media value and Homecoming in a positive context, no less), somehow managed to morph the concept of "media value" into actual dollars spent: https://heroichollywood.com/spider-man-140-million-marketing/ When in reality, most, if not ALL of that "value" was received by Sony in the end via product placement and other tie-ins with its partners, which, more likely than not, ADDED to Homecoming's bottom line (though, again, that is not really ever anything I've seen discussed in these threads, because those numbers are almost entirely unverifiable by us, and I know it was only done here as a last ditch, and rather feeble attempt to convince people that Wonder Woman was somehow more "profitable", despite making $60MM less, an argument I haven't even seen that hack Mendelson try to make). So yes, now that we've (hopefully) gotten that cleared up, I'm going to go back through this thread and laugh at some of the other absurd statements and predictions made by a few boardies about this film. -J.

I see what you did there. -J.

"Is 'tec 880 the most expensive non key/variant modern?" Yes. Absolutely. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Detective-Comics-871-881-CGC-9-8-880-8-5-871-Rare-red-variant-cover-/322755552750?hash=item4b25bae5ee:g:Q2YAAOSwDcpZtaDN http://www.ebay.com/itm/CGC-9-8-Detective-Comics-880-Scott-Snyder-Jock-Classic-Cover-RARE-GRADE-/162670795010?hash=item25dfef5902:g:8q0AAOSwn1FZt2-S -J.

It did end up passing BvS this week after all. Not bad for a "reboot" movie. Speaking of "reboots"- Scott Mendelson, the resident DC hack-boy at Forbes, continues to barely bother to conceal his naked disdain for Homecoming's blockbuster success with this latest back-handed hit piece on it: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/09/22/spider-man-homecoming-box-office-triumph-may-be-a-disaster-for-hollywood/amp/ .....nevermind the fact that Superman has been on his third reboot since 2013, Fantastic Four is going on its third one, The Hulk is on his third one, even the Punisher is on his third one if you count the Netflix show, X men is going on its fourth one, and Batman is on his fifth. And never mind the fact that Sony has to continue to release the films just to hold onto the rights (something DC does not have to worry about, and yet we still have all of those reboots from Warner, not a question or concern for Mr. Mendelson, of course). Or maybe Mendelson thinks we should still be seeing 42 year old Tobey MacGuire in these movies. Heck, even Andrew Garfield, at 34, was also already too old, unless we want to see Peter Parker- the Dan Slott years on the big screen. Yes, for some reason it will all be because of Homecoming's unabashed, unqualified success that we might get another Terminator movie at some point. -J.

I don't claim to know the ins and outs of how it all works or comes together, and how all the money breaks down, but based on my limited knowledge of the printing industry, the greater likliehood is that Marvel handles the printing and publishing rights aspects after Campbell submits the proposed work to them for their approval and they approve it. Campbell then receives the case packs with his books in them, much like a retailer does from Diamond. He then is responsible for sending them out himself. I'm sure Campbell pays a very hefty royalty/split to Marvel (which is Disney, access to any of their intellectual property is extremely expensive), he needs them more than they need him. There is no way Campbell is "clearing" $200k for each one of these little doodles that he is pooping out. Seriously, it is more realistically in the $20k-$25k range, which is still great money for what he does no doubt, but let's not get crazy here, Marvel/Disney is not giving away the farm to this dude to let him run his little internet business. -J.

What the printer charges for creating the product and what Marvel charges for publishing it are two different things- it is their intellectual property that he is capitalizing on after all- I guarantee you their cut is probably in the 70% range, AT LEAST. -j.

What about Marvel's cut? The colorist? Web hosting? Transaction expenses? Etc. If he was actually clearing that kind of money per cover he wouldn't have to pump out so many. I'd be surprised if his take home per cover was significantly greater than $25k after all was said and done. Still not bad at all. -J.

Very nice book you have there ! -J.

Such a nice example nonetheless. Nicely centered and sharp edges. -J.

Good Lord man that is a pretty book right there. From the front that certainly looks like a strong 9.8 candidate to me. But like my man Polirer said, would have to see the back since that's where the flaws of this book almost always are (including scratches and colour rubs in the dark blue areas). But the spine looks super clean. And damn, you're an original owner on a measly $100 investment back when you were in college? That's probably a better return on your initial investment than some people's actual college education during the same time frame. Agreed though, love the book. I had to get mine from a Canadian dealer and paid a fair amount above $100 for the privilege. But it's definitely in my top 5 favourite books in my collection, and I'm still shocked at how infrequently these things surface (especially a nice looking raw copy). Guess I should update the "club" list now. But for god's sake, would you at least put that thing in a top loader. -J.