VintageComics

If you ever upgrade that #9, please put me first in line for your under copy! Love that book!

What would be different about East and West vs. them just hiring more people out East?

I've been following this from the sidelines from time to time through my con meetings with Mark (talked to him this past weekend in Baltimore). From what I understand he's been doing this out of his own pocket so if anyone feels compelled, I'm sure that you could send a donation and Mark would probably appreciate it greatly. I don't want to go into great detail but my understanding is that the man hours and dollars out of pocket that Mark has donated is significant. Anyway, just wanted to throw that out there in case anyone was able to help out a good cause.

Darnnit. Never seen one of those in person that nice.

There's a page for sale in the sales thread for Flatrock Yup, I saw it. Thnx.

I'm always on the lookout for Baker art and I picked this up recently.

John, it's not that dealers are upping their prices...people are just paying more for Hulk #181 across the board from every grade 0.5 - 9.4

The only difference is Walking Dead #1 is much rarer! I think Hulk #181 had a print run between 200,000 to 300,000,while WD had 7,000. 7500 Hulk #181 bubble is already bursting. (thumbs u Well the realistic supply pricing anyway. Hulk #181 has strong upward support in every grade up to 9.4 as prices have been rising in all grades up to (and including 9.4). 9.6 and 9.8 might be levelling off but that is happening on all books.

This thread is a lot like all the Hulk #181 threads in the mid 2000's when people were wondering how much higher Hulk #181 was going to go. Just substitute WD #1 for Hulk #181 and we can relive them all over again.

I agree with Bronty in that the monster is less of a focal point with so much line work around him but I think Wrightson's point was to be as realistic as possible (ala aardvark's explanation). And as large and menacing as the monster is, nature completely overtakes him and shrouds him into this small, tortured thing lost in the middle of nowhere. Although I do agree with many of the observations about how it could have been different I personally love it the way it is. I'd love to own a Wrightson plate from this book one day.

I tried to kick the tree but it didn't work so we crossed swords instead.

Serengeti Pisa My favourite kind. They don't make them any more so I have to scout them out when I need a pair.

Awkward.

That wasn't me.

You are that troll thing. I dont have it saved, but Flee did that ages ago. I'm trying to reinvent my image. Like Madonna.

Oh, Oh, pick me!

I've got it priced at an "I'll live with it" number.

I looked at it on Heritage. What a gorgeous book. Definitely needed to be freed.

I don't want it to sell. I just have such a small inventory that I often put up books (special ones) to attract some attention. I've priced the book aggressively because I'm not in a hurry to part with it.

I would probably add DM #3 into my top 11 list of Schomburgs - I simply forgot about it when we had that thread a few weeks ago. I agree that MM #4 is right up there. Is that yours? I know there was a very slightly restored higher grade copy floating around a few years ago - that must be it!

I've got it on eBay for a really high price but I don't' expect it to sell for that. I'd value it realistically around the $22K range, right between about $9-10K for a 9.0 and the $36K that Doug's 9.4 fetched.

Good golly, that's an awesome book! One of my favorite Schomburg covers. Love it!

Yup, I bought it with the sig there and although I'd have preferred it to be without a sig as soon as I saw the book I had to have it, knowing I may never get a shot at a nicer copy. The next best copy I'd seen before this one was an 8.5 copy about 4 years ago.

I'm not expressing an opinion on this copy, but are you saying that, if it's the nicest copy, it's a 9.8? That's the impression you're giving, but I'm sure that's not what you're intending. That is exactly what I am saying. I am assuming that the defect is considered a printing defect. It can't be completely ignored as some printing defects are, because it is atrocious. In the event that there are copies where the printing defect does not actually damage the paper (as most of the examples are tears) they are the 9.8s. It is consistent with the way they treat other printing defects. I don't like seeing those mutated abortion miswraps, or King Kong nutsack creases in 9.8 slabs, but everyone says "Oh its a printing defect." Why should this be different? Mr. Objective being relative. I think I just jumped up and down a little inside.