Zolnerowich

I love Bok!

Sorry, Yorick. My bad on the More Fun #48. I was misled by the CGC label, which said Flessel. As per comics.org, this cover used to be attributed to Flessel, but is now attributed to John Richard Flanagan. I updated my earlier post.

I’m in awe. Twice apparently!

I’m in awe.

Superb!

Thanks for sharing, Jack. How was the Big Apple Christmas Spectacular? Get any GA goodies to put under your tree? Didja lock horns with Steranko?

Love it! Which issue is that story from?

You really should contact CGC about this. It would of course help if you had a pre-slab photo of the spine...

As proud steward of the Zolnerowich™ name, I vote that the most coveted Planets are all those with covers by Zolnerowich! Actually, I find this a tough question to answer, since "most coveted" means different things to different people. There is "most coveted" in terms of scarcity, which Gerber and Overstreet have told us would include #2, #5, #8, and #15, though if you look at GPA/CGC census (granted, not a perfect source), this would instead include #14 (19 unrestored copies), #15 (20 unrestored copies), and #6, #12, and #17 (tied at 22 unrestored copies), all data as of 12/15/2019. On the other hand, "most coveted" in terms of market value, based on recent GPA (again, I know, GPA isn't at all perfect), this would include #1, #2, #5, #8, #14, #15, and #17, limiting myself to the Rivets. One could easily add #18 and #19. Finally, most coveted, simply in terms of supreme cover awesomeness, is more subjective, though I think there is general consensus for #2, #5, #8, #10, #13, #14, #17, #65, #66, #71, #72. That said, with the right color strike (I suppose preferably in higher grade), almost any given copy of any given issue might be afforded a "most coveted" slot. Such as the recent Planet #18, cgc 6.5, that sold on CC. Or the absolutely scintillating #49 and #52 that Edgar Church used to own. I guess it follows that based on the Most Coveted list Flex has assembled, any book NOT on the list could qualify for being undervalued. Thus, my Most Undervalued List would include: #6 and #19, with #49, #52, and #56 close behind. As for Flex's Most Coveted List, I'd swap #33 for #35. The girl's left arm on #33 is weirdly too short IMHO. I'd also swap #53 for #56.

Hi Phil, I agree with you that some people ain't sufficiently educated about conservation. I'm one of them. So I decided to educate myself. I clicked on the link about CGC restoration that @lou_fine provided a few posts above. I'm assuming this is the most up-to-date information. Here is their colorful blurb: There's a lot of information here. Logic, less so. I initially concluded that, well, okay, the idea is that as long as no "foreign" material was being added to the book, such as color touch or piece replacement or cadaver piece fill (gotta love that descriptor!), then all is good and the book thusly qualifies for Conserved. And I suppose there is the related concept that if all the work done to the book is easily reversible, without disrupting the native object-structure of the book, then it satisfies a Conserved grade. So, reattachment of a piece (presumably implying that it came the very same book) is a-ok for Conserved, while replacement of a piece (from a different book or from who knows what else, e.g., photocopy in the worst instance?) would be bad news bears for Conserved. And tear seals, being reversible, are ok for Conserved. But my confusion quickly set in. "Some leaf casting" gets a Conserved Grade, but "leaf casting" earns a Restored Grade. If leaf casting is considered to represent a physical matrix onto which new artwork is affixed, doesn't all of this amount to the addition of foreign material and being far removed from "reversible"? Which a reasonable person might reasonably conclude would always be compatible with Restored. How is the boundary defined between "some" (Conserved) and more than "some" (Restored) leaf casting? There's certainly no guidance from the restoration info blurb. And then there's the matter of married pages or cover, which the blurb explicitly states is Restoration, not Conservation. Yet we have seen several examples now in this thread of Conserved books containing married pages. Not to belabor this further, but heck, I might as well. For example, "some cover or interior cleaning" gets a Conserved label, the implication being that "a whole lotta" cleaning will get a Restored label. Or, wheat glue Conserved, but white glue Restored, because, um, wheat glue is vegan? And once more to the point about "reversible" restoration, if piece attachment can be removed (and therefore meets Conserved criteria), then isn't it true that piece replacement, which can also be removed, should qualify for Conserved? Which just begs the point: how did we get here, and why? These issues simply highlight that, for the average person, and perhaps for the more-than-average person, the criteria for conservation vs. restoration do not make a lot of sense. As such, it's hard to educate oneself when the available data are full of inconsistencies. And based on these inconsistencies, it's tempting to conclude that arbitrary and/or mysterious decisions are being made when it comes to assigning a Conserved vs. Restored grade. More explicit information would be most helpful.

+10

No doubt that color/eye appeal strongly drives the Fiction House market, given so much cover color variability, compared to other publishers. The standout here was the Planet #18, 6.5. Though note, for some of the high-grade Planets that just sold at the December 2019 CC auction, such as the MH #18 and MH #70, these were flipped, er, consigned, within 12 months of the December 2018 CC Auction where the books were originally sold. No doubt this flipping stuff had a negative impact on the sales prices, especially taking into account the seller's fee. To wit: Planet #18 MH 9.4 (Dec. 2018): $19,200 Planet #18 MH 9.4 (Dec. 2019): $14,000 Planet #70 MH 9.0 (Dec. 2018): $5,035 Planet #70 MH 9.0 (Dec. 2019): $5,200 (minus 10% seller's fee = $4,680) Schadenfreude, anyone?

Well, someone needs to write a strongly worded letter to whomever is in charge!

But seriously, returning to a recent theme in this thread, how in the world does a book with a married back cover receive a “conserved” grade? Not to mention, as in the fugly 3.5 above, when it also includes pieces added to cover and interior, tear seals, cover reinforced, etc.???

But I am very proud of you for sharing that difficult experience!

Ditto. I communicate with him frequently, especially around Auction Fever time, meaning, like, every couple weeks. But the short story is, basically, Sqeggs doesn’t like us anymore.

Interesting observations, Dean, especially regarding the possible (probable?) reasons why Jon Berk decided to sell off his entire collection in a single auction.

One of the very best!!!!! Not even sure why he’s selling the thing!

As a devout fan of the early Fox books, I think the Mystery Men 5 would have sold better in the Berk auction if it hadn't been surrounded by so many other key Mystery Men books that collectors place a higher premium on, such as #1, #3, and #10 (not to mention all the other Fox titles that were up for auction at that time). Just not enough money to spread around. The consigner of the MM5 on ComicConnect got a nice price because it stood out without any other competition. Sadly I wasn't the consigner!

You can never go wrong with a #2.

It’s possible that with a critical mass of Planetheads on these boards and in other realms, the better looking copies are drying up, leading to a steady price creep. Not that I’m calling anyone a creep.

Yep! Exactly what you’re always saying on these boards — buy the book not the label. This truism is never truer than with the Fiction House books, with such wide variation in color strike.

All about the colors, mate. It’s the Fiction House way.