jimbo_7071

I've bought several raw books from them. A couple were tightly graded, but the others appeared to be graded about right. It might depend on which person is grading them.

It looks like he's holding a Grand Slam Three Aces #44. I see Bomber #3 back there, too! (I'm sure some of you guys know all of the visible issues on sight.)

The book looks like it could have a light transfer stain. (The white areas in the middle of the book don't look as white as the outer edges.) If so, that must not affect the grade even in 9.9.

What am I looking at here? Is that from one of the films? I don't remember ever seeing a Batman movie with an elderly, blonde Batman.

The Grand Comics Database credits the Iger shop with much of the interior work on this one, but there are no credits for the cover. Do you think that the Iger shop would have done the cover, too? I was wondering who the cover artist was, but if the Iger shop did it, then I'll probably never know.

That's not in my wheelhouse, but it's one of the best Mad covers! Very cool!

There's no such thing as a Universal label for an autographed book. The yellow Signature Series grade is a qualified grade and always has been. The Universal grade would be much lower because of the writing.

I can only speak for myself, but I would absolutely choose a 6.0 first printing over an 8.5 later printing. I would take a 4.0 first printing over an 8.5 later printing, just like for Marvel Comics 1 I would take a 4.0 October copy over an 8.5 November copy.

Some people might want to know which copy they have, for better or worse. Of course, people who already know that they're holding a copy that reads "On Sale Now" probably won't be sending their books in any time soon.

Claws of the Green Girl to The Claw colored green.

Now THAT is funny!

Purple herbivorous dinosaur to purple carnivorous dinosaur (Barney?).

Zolnerowich Fight to Zolnerowich Fight.

I feel certain that the "why" will be forthcoming. The CGC leadership couldn't possibly be arrogant enough to adopt such a bizarre position without providing a logical rationale that reflects the best interests of the collecting community.

In your opinion, Mike, is it odd that CGC would choose not to differentiate between two different versions of one of the most significant books in the hobby?

Well, I haven't taken a flight since 2014, but I probably used a paper boarding pass.

Extraterrestrial causing distress to a female to extraterrestrial causing distress to a male and a female simultaneously.

I agree with all of the above. I strongly suspect that only the first printing carries the "On Sale June 2nd" version of the ad. That means that the second and third printings may be indistinguishable from one another based on what we know now, but it's possible that examining enough copies side by side may lead to a discovery of some minor differences between those later printings.

It is true that we don't know know which version of the ad appeared in the second printing, but we could draw an inference by determining how common or uncommon the "Now on Sale" version is. If only about a sixth of the extant copies have that version, then it likely appeared only in the 3rd printing. If closer to half have it, then it almost certainly appeared in both the 2nd and 3rd printings. Dealers who have handled many copies of the book might already have a pretty good idea how common that version is.

I hate the sites that are optimized for mobile (and I'm not just talking about comic book sites). I always use my laptop for bidding, and the sites that are optimized for mobile are slower and clunkier on a laptop.

Underrated Whitman war cover to underrated Whitman jungle cover.

I agree with you; I'm just predicting how CGC will try to spin it in order to justify doing what they want to do.

I'll be curious to see what CGC has to say, but I won't be surprised if the response amounts to "plausible deniability," which would be something to the effect of, "Well, we can't tell for sure which printing is which, so we treat them all the same." Never mind the fact that the collecting community cares about the issue enough that it's been a topic of discussion on the boards for fifteen years and counting. Never mind the fact that CGC could have confirmed the percent distribution of the different versions by now if they had chosen to collect and analyze the data. Never mind that they could note which version of the house ad a copy contains without committing to endorsing that copy as a first edition or reprint.

That's one way to spin it, but the fact remains that on of the "traunches" is a first printing and the others are not. Many collectors likely don't know about this issue; most would prefer to own the first printing if they did know, I'll warrant. An original is an original. There is really no excuse for CGC's not noting which house ad a particular copy contains. If they want to steer clear of calling some copies first printings and other reprints, so be it. They can put the information about the house ad on the label and let a duly informed market decide if one "variant" is more valuable. There's no doubt in my mind how that would shake out.

Red, orange, and yellow flames to Red Mist on an orange and yellow cover.