VintageComics

Wouldn't you rather announce an upcoming sales thread? O gosh. I wasn't going to say. I wasn't. Here I am biting my tongue and then YOU have to make me spit it out of my mouth.

OK good, cause we were worried that you might mess this one up. Mark, if you need any help at all, feel free to PM me.

Now THAT is funny.

Did I mention that dead beat dads suck?

Uh, no. I think you misunderstand the situation and the proceedings. First, it wouldn't cost six figures, as I believe Mark is simply retaining this attorney as specialized help. This isn't going to cost six figiures. I think Mark will be doing a great deal of the work, but as he mentioned, he may need oe help with respect to how family court works, issues about who the judge is, nuances with regards to child support Second, this isn't a situation where he can counter sue. This is a child support hearing in family court. If he wanted to sue Jan, he'd have to do so in a separate action. I haven't misunderstood anything. You are kidding youself if you don't think Dupcak if he feels he is wrongly accused wouldn't file suit against esquirecomics or anyone else whom he feels is ruining his buisness and public reputation. Simply bringing up what some feel are unethical buisness practices at a single custody hearing and to think that you're going to get the answers you're looking for isn't even realistic. I don't know Dupcak from Adam. But he strikes me as kind of a troll and an unseemly type that hides in the shadows and isn't much for the limelight. My guess is, if he's reading this, he's really wishing it would all just go away rather than doing the bwhahaha laugh and having delusions of grandeur, thinking of all the counter suing he's going to do. As a gambler I would put my money on him wanting to avoid as much legal hassling as possible. I'm betting he's reading these posts and possibly even being quoted in these threads.

That depends. Can you please post a link to any positive contributions you have made while posting here?

This, coming from the guy who told me my price on a Marvel Mystery 44 was "assinine" and "laughable". Good luck with your manners (thumbs u Not to mention the fact that the MM #44 SOLD. ...and that a possible undercopy went up on Comiclink soon after.

These forums are so self destructive that while they were posting we've driven away some of the very creators that we spend time worshiping on here...Neal Adams, Don Rosa. I mean, we don't have to kiss people's heels but we don't have to drive them out either. I don't think they should let Canadians post here. I use my duel citizenship to stay on the fence. Diplomatic Canadian by day, aggressive Serbian by night. Did I mention my distaste for Irishmen?

These forums are so self destructive that while they were posting we've driven away some of the very creators that we spend time worshiping on here...Neal Adams, Don Rosa. I mean, we don't have to kiss people's heels but we don't have to drive them out either.

Agreed. Upon rethinking it, even two is sufficient if absolutely necessary. These selling forums are divided up pretty good now.

I think three is a reasonable limit if the books are entirely different animals. For example I'd separate a run of coverless GA books from a run of high grade Bronze books, but I wouldn't necessarily separate a run of coverless GA from a run of GA with covers attached. Discretion is a big part of it. I don't think that it should be mandatory to contribute to the boards before selling books if it is established that the seller is indeed credible, as in this case I believe that has been the case (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this). I think that the fact that the seller is trying to adhere to the rules as they are being pointed out is admirable even if the seller did mess up by not doing his homework ahead of time. I think it's very possible to keep someone who is initially just a good seller here as a member of the community if they feel welcome. Proselyting, anyone? In the interests of disclosure, I haven't purchased anything from the seller, nor do I plan to (you never know, though), so I don't have any real interest in this matter other than recognizing that this seller seems to have a decent knowledge of the hobby and would likely become an asset should he or she choose to stay. Just the level headed responses speak volumes about their character compared to some replies we get from long standing members on here. Edited to say that positive contributions to the other forums would be appreciated though. (thumbs u

Gotcha. I can see the conflict. What if going forward with litigation uncovers past money owing. If DD indeed has massive amounts of income that has gone unchecked, there could be a large windfall. I can't stand dead beat dads. They deserve to be shot and pizzed on. No parental support for the child and no singificant real world financial support. Shot and pizzed on.

Let me see if I can understand this. You are asking if it's ethical to sue for child support in such a manner that DD might be put out of business if it can be proven that he indeed withheld evidence of income? I think it's a win/win. The child gets nothing now. If after millions of dollars of illegal revenue are uncovered the courts find a percentage of that belongs to the child, that is a substantial amount of money that the child would not be able to access otherwise. The other option is to allow DD to function as a fraudulent entity to continue to support the child from here on after but with no compensation for the past. That doesn't make any sense to me.

:cloud9: Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in THE WHEELS ARE IN MOTION AGAIN!!!

I just emailed this to myself and 1000 of my closest friends.

I think there is much, much more to this. What is missing from the scenario explained by JC is that if a child support issue is in front of the courts, the judge won't be content to hear "alright, I'll pay" even if there is the slightest hint of evidence that a bursary award might exist in the dollar value Mark suggests. It will be more like, "let's hear more about this hidden money" - to act in any other manner would be counter-intuitive to the reasons a child support case is brought in front of the courts in the first place. Yup. They don't muck around once there is reason to believe that you've been neglecting your own children. (thumbs u

I think you'll find that if one end of the slab rests on the glass you'll eliminate a lot of that glare.

The only way to find out is for people to post examples...and I'd personally like to see thick and thin slabs scanned. So far very few examples here.

I actually learned this through experimenting...many of the features work better by doing a little at a time rather than all at once. I found very favorable results by adjusting brightness and contrast slightly, making some other adjustments and then readjusting brightness and contrast slightly again. Markedly different than trying it all in one shot. Thanks for the tip! (thumbs u

Larry It is, and so is mine. Thanks for the link. (thumbs u I'll have to check it out. I had thought that there may have been a difference in driver revisions to explain the differences in the results I'm getting (on Vista) and those Roy is getting (he's on XP). I'm only using the HP basic driver and using the XP Scanner and Camera Wizard to make my scans. I found the full HP driver to be cumbersome and slow. When I tried to download the Blue Tint Patch I was told I didn't need it. I believe I tried downloading it for both drivers...but the full HP Driver was actually newer than the patch so I assume it would already have it. As far as Vista vs. XP I'd love to know what you're talking about as I don't remember seeing a Sharpness setting on the full driver. Do you have a screen shot? This is the only place I remember seeing Sharpness settings....on Arcsoft.

I'm taking notes and trying some stuff out. Here are 3 scans all done differently. Scan 1 is the original at 300 dpi. Scan 2 is manually enhanced using Arcsoft. First I adjusted saturation to 20% (to get the Yellow correct as it seems to have a direct effect on Yellow). Did not touch hue at all (I don't care what hue says). Then I adjust the Brightness/Contrast by dropping brightness -20 and increasing Contrast +20. This looks the best of the 3 IMO when compared to the original book though not perfect. The reds are too bright. Scan 3 is simply auto enhanced to one of the darker coarse settings. I think the glare will remain on any extra thick slabs. There's really no way to eliminate it effectively.

I've been messing around with the the original scans because they are not truly representative of the books, and as Joe said the infinite variables can make it a real nightmare to try and get it right manually. I have a few options going from lighter to darker with the auto enhance feature in Arcsoft and feel I can get a pretty accurate representation of the book using just the coarse scale that it provides. HP 8250, 300 dpi, Arcsoft auto enhance, Windows XP I've compared the book in hand to the auto enhanced scan (basically side by side) and it looks good. Any thoughts? Pre auto enhance. Entire scan is very dull looking and blurred. Looks worse than the book in hand. Post auto enhance. The whites are representative to the actual book in hand while the yellowing and tanning (on the spine) which Crippens are famous for is still also accurately represented.

I think we can now officially consider this thread closed thanks to Mr. Parker.

Hey gang, I did this a couple of years ago but things have changed a lot with scanner technology so I decided to start a new thread to help locate which scanners make the best scans for CGC slabs. If you own a scanner with a legal size platen can you post a few examples of what your scanner can do, the make and model of the scanner and how you adjusted the scan to compensate for any problems? I'll include a few different slab thicknesses for variety. This is mine made with an HP 8250, no adjustments made to the pics, USB port and taken at either 300 or 600 dpi. Windows XP operating system, Mozilla upload to photobucket. Oh yeah, two burritos for breakfast with yogurt and pickles. This is exactly the same scan at 600dpi but it's been "auto enhanced".

Me too.