fifties

On 2/2/2024 at 7:40 AM, Robot Man said:

That grade is criminal. Either that or I really don’t know how to grade…

I can't agree.  That book easily qualifies for a VG+, per Overstreet guidelines.

Quote

8.5 VERY FINE+ (VF+): Fits the criteria for Very Fine but with an additional virtue or small accumulation of virtues that improves the book’s appearance by a perceptible amount.

 

8.0 VERY FINE (VF): An excellent copy with outstanding eye appeal. Sharp, bright and clean with supple pages. A comic book is this grade has the appearance of having been carefully handled. A limited accumulation of minor bindery/printing defects is allowed. Cover is relatively flat with minimal surface wear beginning to show, possibly including some minute wear at corners.

On 1/29/2024 at 8:55 PM, Telegan said:

the problem is the one that was up for auction had the same back cover but was listed as the Superior/Canadian edition on the slab.

 

That merely proves that the grading entity got it wrong.

How about some first hand information, AKA, my copy.

On 1/17/2024 at 9:26 PM, Hap Hazard said:

Yours is closer to what was supposed to be covered, Vol. 1 No. 15 (Formally Vault of Horror) Mine the registration was off and you can clearly see it.

Works for me!  

On 1/17/2024 at 7:26 AM, Robot Man said:

Color touch?…

Seriously, a fairly tough issue that rarely turns up. Especially this variant. Never seen one. 

Mine's like that.

I posted in the other thread that the Superman comic book on the news stand was dated November, 1955.

On 1/14/2024 at 8:25 PM, woowoo said:

Anyone know what episode these 2 are from and year.

DK the episode, but the cover date of the Superman comic is November, 1955.

On 1/15/2024 at 7:57 AM, Hap Hazard said:

I think you mean 14, use in Senate Subcommittee investigations

Not only that, but it's the best read of the run.  Four excellent stories.

On 1/14/2024 at 2:08 PM, KirbyJack said:

I just used the NM- (9.2) price, the highest one they list.

Here are my qualifiers.

 

 

Yours are just a little rougher than mine.  Overstreet needed a "well read" category, LOL!  In our cases, I guess G would be more appropriate.

I've got most of the books on that list, but I don't see the grades?

On 1/12/2024 at 6:32 AM, ThothAmon said:

I’d rethink this. Common law fraud occurs when someone makes a material misrepresentation with the intention of inducing reliance and causing financial damages.  Hmmm. 🤔 I’d think that unless you disclose that CGC, recognized experts in identifying restoration, has found color touch you’d be committing said fraud.   Especially with your affirmative action of removing the “warning” (PLOD) to prospective purchasers. I’m sure all states have similar laws to NYs. 

 

Wow, looks like I disturbed a real Hornets nest.  I wasn't aware of the passion about this, and will admit that you folks have taught me something.

  I looked at it as, who am I going to believe about CT, CGC or my lying eyes, and didn't consider their validity.  I've been on The Bay since 1998 and have sold hundreds of comics, with not one single return or less than positive F/B hit.  I use the same nic as I do here.

  I've never sold a professionally graded book, but if I should, I have no intention of defrauding anyone.  I keep CGC labels, and would include it in any auction or sales thread scans.

On 1/11/2024 at 6:32 PM, Vegabomb said:

Take all per PM.

On 1/11/2024 at 5:47 PM, sfcityduck said:

CGC isn't perfect in a lot of ways. So, yes, I agree they make mistakes. But if you are selling a book that CGC said had color touch, and you know that because you deslabbed it, why not just tell buyers the facts:  CGC identified the book as having CT but you haven't found any, so you think CGC made one of their mistakes (its well known they aren't perfect). That way the buyer can take a look for CT instead of being in the position of having to trust your opinion - which could be wrong.

Thx and your suggestion is noted, but it's really a moot point, since when I buy a slabbed book, I generally will keep it.

NO LIST PPL, PAYMENT BY PAYPAL OR MAILED CHECK, SHIPPING $6 U.S., Canada add $5 more.  Returns for any reason within one week of receiving.  Offers considered.

Eerie 6, G, lateral tear across FC, small vertical tear at left top, O/W flat, supple, some cover gloss, OW pages, $85.00.

True Life Secrets 17, G+ to G/VG range, flat, glossy, supple, off white pages, all attached, bright inks, small chips out at bottom of FC, larger pieces out of BC.  $85.00.

Adventures Into The Unknown 116, G+ to G/VG range, flat, supple, good cover gloss, off white pages, and an Al Williamson illustrated story.  wear at top of spine and PO on BC.  $30.00.

Adventures Into The Unknown 31, repro cover over original pages.  $20.00.

Uncanny Tales 33, G- due to wear at left FC spine area, and bottom.  $25.00.

Forbidden Worlds 109, VG, & Adventures Into The Unknown 98 Fa, split cover, both for $20.00.

On 1/10/2024 at 8:42 PM, KCOComics said:

Well.. if cgc identified CT, you should disclose it. 

 

CGC is not infallible, as you can see by looking at some of the other posts here, ESP Marty Mann's. 

I wouldn't offer the CGC opinion unless I saw proof of it.  If I did, I would include a scan of their label.

On 1/10/2024 at 2:00 PM, Bumble Kitty said:

A while back, I bought a Golden Age romance book that was graded 9.2, with slight color touch.

  I could not spot the color touch through the slab, so I sent it in for color touch removal and re-grading.  It came back 9.0.  A real nice looking book!  I can't see where the color touch was "scrapped" off.  

 

I'm not at all surprised.  I've bought numerous purple label slabbed "slight color touch" graded books, and I always de-slab them.  I have yet to find the alleged color touch, but more power to them.  It makes the books more affordable to me.  And IF I were to sell it raw, with no mention of CT (not a lie, as I can't see any), could get perhaps a better price than what I paid.

Not Golden Age, but in the spirit.

On 1/5/2024 at 12:51 PM, Bookery said:

  It's partially, if not primarily, because adults (parents and vendors) paid so little attention to comics that they just assumed everything was like Superman or Donald Duck.  When Wertham and others capitalized on this lack of awareness, it created a panic.

No, the panic started apart from anything Wertham did, and well before the 1954 publication of SOTI and the Senate committee hearing he was involved in.  There was a furor in '48, and then again about '52-'53.

On 1/5/2024 at 5:30 AM, Bookery said:

Probably.  But I think we tend to believe money is behind all motivation.  I think a lot more people are driven by the desire for fame and attention than actual money.  And I think it's an over-simplification to dismiss Wertham merely as a mustache-twirling villain.  There are two other factors that came into play in the 1950s.

First, for whatever cultural reason, in America (unlike Europe or Japan) society couldn't conceive that comic books might be produced for all ages... comics were a product that simply had to be designed for children.  If you look at it from this perspective, then yes, comics were truly pushing the boundaries of what would be acceptable for young ages.  Second, the publishers and newsstands were not without blame themselves.  They made no attempt to put warnings and suggestions on some titles that they were meant for teens or older, because the publishers didn't want to lose any sales, including those to children (see... the whole "money" thing goes both ways).  Let's be honest... these same exact stories in some of those comics, re-packaged today, 2024, with modern art so that we can distance from the "historical artifact" nature of the originals, would still receive a "not for children" label or an age-appropriateness range on the cover.  No movie in the 1950s, no matter what the target age, contained the level of gore and violence that was available in comics racked right next to Little Lulu and Stumbo the Giant.  It's curious that newsstand operators who would never think of selling a child a copy of the pulps Horror Stories or Weird Tales (stories that had to be read at length to get to the salacious parts) never gave a second thought to selling a 9-year old comics with gore and sexual innuendo to be seen at once just by flipping open the book.

So like all things in history, it gets complicated.  Should those comics in the '50s have been banned?  Of course not.  Should some effort have been made to categorize them into age-appropriate sectors so that parents could decide for their families?  Probably.  Also, with all things history, it will be endlessly repeated.  70 years later the debate continues on where is the line between separating by age-appropriate, and what is considered to be book banning.

History is rarely black-and-white, and if it was it would be pretty dull.  What makes it fascinating, for those willing to put in the work, it to study the complications, layers, and to see things in the context of the times in which they existed.  This is why the SOTIcollectors of the world are to be commended for not only preserving the historical artifacts themselves, but for periodically bringing the stories behind them to our attention lest it all be forgotten.

Some good points, but I must dispute several.  Actually Dr. Wertham DID do some good things for society,  but this wasn't one of them, AFA those of us who enjoyed, and still do, the pre-code fare. 

In regards to, "They made no attempt to put warnings and suggestions on some titles" isn't entirely true; please see the the restriction on the enclosed.  That said, there were few of these, and frankly as a kid it would have only served to encourage buying the "forbidden".  

"No movie in the 1950s, no matter what the target age, contained the level of gore and violence that was available in comics"  Are you serious?  Take a look at damn near any Tom and Jerry cartoon, where they're slamming each other over the head with bats, or Western movies where guys get beat up or shot to death regularly.

AFA segregating comic books in the '50's, it's too bad that they couldn't have done what the Motion Picture Industry did with feature films about 15 years later, with the G, PG, R, & X labels.

On 1/3/2024 at 3:47 PM, szav said:

May I ask, at the time were you persuaded these comics were bad, or were you inspired to go find a copy instead?

TBH, when I would go to the local news stand, some of the covers would scare the sh*t out of me, LOL.  Mainly the ones showing supernatural creatures (skeletons) overpowering PPL.  As I got older and wanted to read them, I was forbidden to.  The ones I managed to sneak past the wardeness really ignited my passion for them.

Actually the hullabaloo about comic books can be traced back to 1948, when some of the publishers got together and developed the bar and star logo reading, " Authorized ACMP, conforms to the comics code".  Fox Comics especially was putting out some pretty racy stuff in their crime fare.