VintageComics

A "printing defect" in a restored, 0.5 book is one thing. It's an entirely different animal when you're trying to shoe horn something with allegedly that high of an "apparent grade" into a blue label. (Meaning, it really belongs in a green). The utterly laughable disparity in prices between it and what the real 8.0 sold for a year ago suggests that "the market" supports this analysis. And there are in fact some reds present on this cover. The ones that are (particularly on the front cover) just look washed out. Much like the blues on the back cover. There's obviously some kind of atrocious "printing defect" on this cover, made only worse by a pretty bad sun fade to boot. Because Jaydogrules rules state that Jaydogrules is always right. Even when he's never held the book in hand and multiple experts have.

Nope, it has not. It remains a plausible theory. And based on what I've read by and about Ditko, it would be very unlikely that he would have donated it. I don't have the multi-quote function down yet. Mr. Pontoon, the easiest way to multi-quote is to highlight everything you want to quote and then a 'quote this' tab pops up and you click on it.

No that would be called a market bubble. That would collapse the hobby. That is exactly what is happening to most of the biggest keys right now.

Marie Severin donated it. Has that been proven yet? So far it's just a plausible theory.

$23+ and $35K IIRC

Bob, I bought that JIM #84 from the old thread and still have it (if it's the same one - it's literally the nicest copy I've ever seen in my life of one of the toughest books in the entire Marvel Age) If you have any background info on that book I'd be happy to hear about it via PM.

I'm going to close this thread and move the book elsewhere. You know where to find me if you're interested.

There is a precedent with many other books that have color production defects. The missing color is noted, and a technical grade (blue label) is assigned. The back cover is also absent of red. That tells me not faded but actually low/no red ink It's obviously not a sun faded book. It might look like one, but it isn't.

Stronger than the CGC 8.5 that sold in Dec in CC. I know the buyer and he's excited about the book. As I said last summer, Hulk #1 was looking oddly cheap compared to other big SA books like SC #4 and AF #15.

Saying cons are pointless is a blanket statement and it's incorrect. But I think I'll stay off his lawn.

Sell me your Action #23....oh wait.

FF #1 is my favorite Silver Age key. But my point is carried over from discussions in other threads, where it's my belief that if a copy sells for a record number but surrounding copies don't do the same, it's likely because at least one of the bidders thought that particular copy was going to upgrade. The majority of the time that is the reason why a 6.0 would sell for 6.5 - 7.0 money (or whatever the grade is). There are exceptions of course (like when Peewee won that FF #1 for record money) but even in cases like that I tend to gravitate towards the theory that the other bidder that Peewee was bidding against was someone who may have been trying to upgrade the book.

It's not. He's only posting record prices, which are not indicative of the market. The reason that the 6.0 went for near 7.0 money is because it was exceptional for the grade (or potentially upgradeable - I haven't looked closely enough to decide). There was an FF #! 7.5 that went for low $20's and an 8.0 that went for $35K, which is middle of the road for that book, currently.

It's not talking about prices that people complain about. It's that (you primarily) only talk about prices, you throw out over inflated values withyour guesses (because you are emotionally invested in the value of your books), and theories about why the book should be worth more. It's like you are the Mitch Mhedy of the SA forum (Mitch did a lot of the same in the GA forum and people started ignoring him). Do you ever talk about Spider-man #2 or artwork or story lines? If you do I haven't read it. If I go search your posts in this forum for the last few months, I'd be willing to bet that most of your posts are about how valuable books are or should be. And THAT is what bothers people who are complaining. I loved the hobby more when the hobby wasn't as much about investment and moreso just wondering how I could afford certain books. If you don't get why people are reacting the way they do then n o worries. People will continue to judge you for the way you "enjoy" the hobby.

As I said, I've seen the book in person. It's a solid 9.8 Scans often don't do books justice and introduce things that are not on the book in real life.

Bob, if you have an account with CC you get emails from them with a list of books being auctioned and links to each book. I just clicked on the links to the AF #15 auctions and they are still accessible. All old auctions are accessible through old email links. Just sign up with them.

Price drop to $3000

The whitest copy I had ever seen was a copy I sold in the mid 2000's. I talked about it when the new owner had auctioned it off on eBay and it went for a record price at the time. The cover was snow white. The interior pages were snow white. It was just the most ridiculously well preserved copy I'd ever seen. Like someone walked it off a time machine from 1964. No idea where that book ended up. I've seen this book in hand. It's not that dark in hand. For whatever reason CGC's scanner makes books look darker than they actually are.

I think people just want you to shut up about it for 10 minutes. And just stop financially pumping books for a breath or two. I know I've been involved in the financial discussion in some threads but I'm just trying to bring some normalcy and levity to what seems to be an opinion that things are good when values are running away out of control. And if people care, I've made the same points whether I own the books I'm talking about or not.

Did this sale just take place or was announced today. It's showing as still available...is it?

It's always cyclical. There was a time when they weren't hot. And then they were. And then they cooled. And now they're hot again. My guess is if /when the Fed starts raising interest rates prices will level off and possibly even pull back on many collectibles.

In the current CGC tape stance, I've never seen a 2.0 attached with tape in a 2.0 blue holder. Good detective work Gotham. So the CL 27 copy should receive a 2.0 label if regarded possibly....since both the 36 and 27 looks so comparable. It's hard to say whether the staples are holding onto the cover at all, as they are off center. It is possible to have a split cover and still have paper holding at one or both staples.

Dude, you've talked about the 3.0 copies on CC for weeks now. If you really want to know, just spend the $10 or $12 and buy the grading notes and you'll know exactly why they graded the way they did.

Thanks, man! Price drop to $3100