VintageComics

Sorry, I missed that you called them.

Wow...that's really odd. When I pay for grader's notes, normally no less than 24 hours (one business day). You should get your notes or a grader's note refund and this is a high profile book. Call them and let them know what happened. They had onsite grading in Chicago last weekend and that really sets them back. They may have been overlooked.

People have been chasing this book for about 3 years now.

Sadfan Mark 2

Roy is in big trouble! My poop don't stink.

Depends on your criteria. Pacific Coasts were fresh. White Mountain was huge. Bethlehems collection was big. I don't know a lot about the Don /Maggie ped but it seemed pretty large. Many of the peds don't have the earliest books in highest grades and that is where the Curator ped is very strong.

Heritage doesn't scan their books which is why they look so different. They're using digital cameras and true color (5k = pure white) bulbs for ambient lighting. Its actually a much more realistic depiction of the book versus a scanner's representation. What Heritage shows is no different than if you were standing outside on a perfectly clear day looking at the book. Which is something probably very few of us have done so it looks a bit off. Since coming back into collecting I've always wondered why dealers and collectors were literally scanning their books instead of using a digital camera. I thought it was a joke at first. Scanners (at least the ones most of us would buy) are typically for scanning documentation. If buyers are unaware of some of the side effects of scanning a book you've got to wonder what they think when they see things like cross-hatching and reverse pixelation (ghost pixels = white spots). Some of these larger online dealers still using scanners would probably notice a few more orders trickling through if they had a proper setup. Aman619 was talking about early Heritage scans which were really poor but I don't blame Heritage. Scanner technology has come a long way over the years. Early Heritage scans were extremely White. Are you sure they are using photography and not scans? I know Comic Connect uses photography now and I personally don't think their photos do their books justice.

That's one of the things that has changed the most about the chat forum. It used to be about the comics. Now it's about talking comics up or down.

Damn. That's eye opening. That's a perfect example.

Scanners will never represent a comic as accurately as holding it in your hand. And even within a pedigree, the OO is a slave to whatever was on the newsstand at the time. If he couldn't find a superior copy and was forced to buy an inferior one then that's what you get for that particular issue. You can trust that the Curator pedigree is top 2 when considered for greatness in the Silver Age and possibly even 1st.

Possibly a 'Museum edition" reprinted in modern times? Regardless, it's fake. They weren't that glossy in the 1940's. That's modern day gloss.

Nobody professes to have the whole picture. So rather than say it's nonsense why don't you say what the grade is and what it sold for (or at least what asking price is)?

And the blues are different on the back of those two labels being compared. But another factor is that the blues actually do differ from CGC label to label (as they used to). Scans often do not compare very accurately one to another, although in this case I'd be inclined to believe they are somewhat representative of the respective books. Heritage's scans are reasonably good in my experience (so the 9.4 is probably close to what it looks like in hand) and both were scanned at Heritage if I'm not mistaken (if that is the BC to PeeWee's AF #15, albeit they were scanned at difference times so possibly different scanners as Heritage has changed their scanners over the years).

It's not so much the clear grays as it is the whiteness of the paper underneath. But that is also very hard to tell unless you are holding the book in hand as pictures vary from one scanner to another. Some scanners can actually make paper look tanned when it isn't.

Bob, there's no point talking logic with someone irrational. Appreciate the kind words. I still remember how white that cover was.

I've been here for 13 years. Everyone knows who I am and many have met me in person. I'm an open book. GAtor and I are not only personal friends, we partner up on deals and we also happen to share the same opinion on AF #15 pricing. You have no idea what you're talking about.

It's not reaching. You're accusing people of specifically saying "I know better than you" when nobody did, of having personal agendas ( certainly don't - if you're accusing me, then what is my agenda?) and trying to manipulate the market. In fact, using record prices for upgradeable copies (and ignoring those copies that didn't set records) and then trying to establish that as a new range is market manipulation.

I just need to point out that nobody said the bold above. Once again, you are injecting your words into someone else's.

You are the most petulant board member I've seen in years. You've sent me 2 apologies via PM and I haven't accepted either because I know they're not sincere. You're like a 12 year old on the side lines cheering on anyone that agrees with you and jumping on anyone who doesn't. That's why most people don't respond to you anymore.

The only intention I have of influencing the market is to bring balance and reality based on my experience and my observations because a market that is false or too hot is unhealthy for everyone in the long run. And using pricing for upgradeable books and applying them to copies that would never fetch those numbers is not healthy for the market. I make money regardless of what the market does, so what pray tell else could be my motivation? Which words did I twist? I have been clear, concise and consistent from the beginning of this discussion. I explained why I thought the record prices were set (all 3 copies looked upgradeable and the copies that were not upgradeable did not sell for record prices), I explained that if the market accepts these record prices as FMV then the market would rise and I stated that I thought it was unhealthy (as did several other guys who deal in or collect big books). You on the other hand said this: But you have no idea who was involved or what the price was. Interjecting the words "cut rate, low ball" is pure speculation on your part and you know nothing of the details.

You are again twisting words in an effort to make the narrative fit your point when you know absolutely nothing of the details.

Big books sell at shows all the time. 5 figure, 6 figure and potentially 7 figure books. Very few people pay with cash. Usually checks, cards or wires. @namisgr - that's exactly what I was trying to say. @piper It's not about a quick flip. An international dealer will buy a mega key if they see that there is some meat on the bone even if the sale doesn't happen immediately.

Right. I think the books that are selling at strong prices now like in the Clink auction (after the record price CC auction) are books that buyers are starting to feel pressured to buy because they don't want to take a chance at a new price increase. And they are probably people who don't read this thread. The reason Chicago copies aren't selling is because the panic hasn't reached the street crowd. An auction house casts a much wider publicity net for buyers than a single comic con. There was a very nice CGC 6.5 being shopped privately around in Chicago at what would be below current record prices as per CC auction that dealers didn't buy. That should tell you something.

There are no doubters. I simply offered an explanation as to why the 1st 3 books went for extremely strong prices and I (and others said) that if the market accepted those record prices as the new market range then higher prices would follow. For the record there were a few AF #15s for sale in Chicago and non of them sold to my knowledge. Even the ones at old asking prices.

It would also vary within a print run so greatly it would be nearly impossible to quantify and scale so they just went for ignoring it unless of course there is an extreme. For example a faded cover will get dinged and an especially vibrant one could possibly be a deciding factor in the grade if they are on the fence (that's just my opinion and not based on any facts)