- Popular Post
-
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
MasterChief
-
Posts
1,522 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
CGC Journals
Gallery
Events
Store
Posts posted by MasterChief
-
-
7 hours ago, MrBedrock said:
This response to Crowzilla's statement that the Church books were "naturally pressed" has sat here for a while with no response (other than a couple of folks whose emojis shed tears for me) and that really bugs me.
Whether or not, or to what degree, anyone believes that stacking comics in a pile for a long period of time in perfect storage conditions constitutes "natural pressing" is irrelevant to the comment above. What is relevant is that this poster feels so strongly in his viewpoint that if someone has the gall to disagree with him they must be "intellectually dishonest", and therefore his position must be intellectually honest.
I think that is a ridiculous, overbearing, self-aggrandizing stance to take in a discussion that has no definitive proof to back up either side.
Now the last time I disagreed with someone here I was labeled sexist. I am sure some of you will now lump me in with Roy as an argumentative insufficiently_thoughtful_person. So be it.
But nobody puts Sean in the corner!!!
(And for the record I think the Church books were simply a result of optimal storage)
I suppose the reason no one responded to either line of logic is because these arguments are not new. They have been used by various individuals for the better part of 17 years on the boards during pressing discussions. Nothing really new or explosive, or aimed to chastise or demean. If one argument is mentioned, it is usually followed by the other. "This poster", who you personally know as Mitch as we have met and chatted at shows down through the years, just so happened to be the one who posted the counter six-foot-stack argument this time around. And as far as putting Sean in a corner goes, I certainly hope he doesn’t feel that way as that was not my intent. I enjoy his postings and look forward to more of them.
-
4 hours ago, Crowzilla said:
Weren't a majority of the Church copies all pressed anyways? What else do you call a book at the bottom of a stack of 500+ other books for 30+ years if not pressed?
Frankly speaking, I’m of the opinion that if an educated hobbyist is advocating the position that the Church Collection could somehow be considered as having been naturally "pressed" inasmuch the way that mechanical pressing produces treatment results, whether performed using the disassembled, intact, or localized treatment method, they are being intellectually dishonest in an effort to marginalize the concerns surrounding the issue and/or demonstrating a blatant desire and determination to publicly avoid the truth.
100s of Church books have been manipulated utilizing pressing treatment procedures during the certification age. Even upon those found near or at the bottom of the six-foot stacks. If the Church books were so well preserved by "natural" pressing in those stacks, then why is there such overwhelming evidence, plainly obvious in the Heritage Auction Archives, that mechanical pressing has been used, and continues to be used, to improve the conditional appearance of Church books after initial graded certification? The six-foot stack argument just doesn't add up.
- Larryw7, Gotham Kid and tth2
-
3
-
On 12/19/2020 at 9:53 AM, RareHighGrade said:
I've noticed that, for some reason, CC deletes its historical data regarding a book it is currently auctioning. Has anyone else noticed that? Perhaps CC thinks the historical data will depress the sale price (certainly not true in the case of the MF 55)?
Yes, I have witnessed this over the courses of many years. First noticed it around 2012 with the premier of the Suscha News Collection. I saw many Suscha selling at auction only to reappear and be relisted again at auction or with a BIN feature some months later. Exact same copy. No doubt about it. In most cases, however, the original listed was removed, or in various cases, the listing remained but the imagery was gone. With the imagery removed there was no way to reconcile old from new. So, it appeared as though a new book was being sold, but in reality, it was the original only to be listed at BIN or selling at auction substantively higher than the original sale.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Circle 8 Copy (Feb '57)
- damonwad, buttock, PopKulture and 3 others
-
6
-
On 11/29/2020 at 6:28 PM, Chicago Boy said:
On the comic front ......
Below is a thread that discusses the principal dealer involved in procuring and selling Cage his collection.
The poster claims to have inside information that many books sold to Cage by the dealer were restored and without disclosure prior to acquisition.
On page #3 the Heritage Cataloguer of the collection chimes in to try and bring clarity to the situation. The information is from a hands-on perspective and the details are noteworthy. So much so, a statement is made that "most of the purple labeled books do not have the 'from the Nicolas Cage collection' on them."
The statement of missing Cage designations was quickly rebuffed by the then CGC President & Primary Grader, who responded by saying "ALL of the comics say "FROM THE COLLECTION OF NICOLAS CAGE"... Go look again. We would not "snub" any comic, you know better than that."
However, the cataloguer was correct in his declaration. After an initial study of the collection, sometime after the thread aired, I discovered there were restored books missing the Cage designation. Here are a few:
Adventure Comics #32 (DC, 1938) CGC Apparent FN+ 6.5
Action Comics #9 (DC, 1939) CGC Apparent VF/NM 9.0
Action Comics #15 (DC, 1939) CGC Apparent VF 8.0
Finally, on page #6 of the thread, 18-days after the original poster's opening salvo, the Cage dealer responds to the accusations with their side of the story. According to the dealer, he "personally sold Nick Cage 100% percent of his collection."
Here's the thread:
For Your Eyes Only they said, but EVERYONE should read this!
-
3 hours ago, LDarkseid1 said:
Looking at the book, and I mean it’s only the front cover I can go by, but I’d say it seems more in line that it was originally under graded then later on over graded. Also a press, maybe a clean clearly helped. So the eventual 9.6 doesn’t bother me as much I guess personally, unless there’s other obvious defects I’m missing, a small dust shadow on the back, etc... No doubt it’s crazy how these transformations can happen though! I was soo sad when I found out the Action 1 white page 9.0 was an upgrade and not a new to market copy lol.
My apologies. I should have posted the back cover for examination purposes. It's below along with my take...
In my approximation the Vancouver copy was graded accurately as an 8.0.
The lower left corner of the front cover displays a rather significant corner blunt. So much so the scanner created a reflective pool of what appears to be white light upon the concave surface area of the compression fold.
Furthermore, the back cover exhibited a fair amount of soiling in the white perimeter area surrounding the Daredevil advertisement. Couple that with the creases revealed along the lower spine, which the scanner emphasized as light passed over the subject area, and the blunting apparent on the front cover, and you have a solid very fine specimen.
- Larryw7 and LDarkseid1
-
2
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
As far as to your question of record grade jump goes... well, in keeping with Daredevil #1, the original 9.6 Nicolas Cage "file copy" of Daredevil Battles Hitler #1 is an interesting if not inexplicable study. It may very well answer the question. Although I suspect it's not what you may have expected.
Slippery When Wet
First listed as an apparent re-glossed CGC 9.6 in the 2002 Heritage Comic Auction #804, it was the highest graded specimen at the time of auctioning.
The book resurfaced 8 years later in Heritage Comic Art Auction #7017. Unfortunately, the post Cage auction years weren't good for that particular copy because it bore a new purple restored certification label with a lesser grade of 9.2, and without the "Cage" designation. Apparently, some gambler tried their hand at resubmission roulette thinking CGC might miss the restoration (re-glossed cover) the second time around. Regrettably, for the submitter, it didn't work out.
The book went into hiding for a couple more years only to turn up in a 2012 eBay auction. This time around, however, it was wearing a certified Blue Universal 9.4 label without the re-glossed cover annotation. Currently, the whereabouts of the book are unknown. The last certification number for the 9.4 copy is no longer searchable.
References
Heritage Auctions:
Daredevil Comics #1 File Copy (Lev Gleason, 1941) CGC Apparent NM+ 9.6
Daredevil Comics #1 (Lev Gleason, 1941) CGC Apparent NM- 9.2
eBay:
-
On 11/25/2020 at 6:22 PM, Mmehdy said:
Question: on a mega key... what is the record grade jump from initial CGC to final upgraded grade? Anyone know?
On 11/26/2020 at 12:59 PM, lou_fine said:Well, okay.......................................if not that oldie moldy picture, then how about this one here with his very own comic book cover appearance:
Seems you're enamored with Daredevil Comics #1. I was too some years ago. Really wanted a nice copy for the collection. That's until I looked under the hood and discovered that many books, including numerous current top-tier 9.0 and above specimens, have been doctored. The extracurricular work on the lower-grade books has bastardized the high-grade population pool thereby diluting the relative value of unique copies. One could argue that the value of high-grade books would be even higher today if their scarcity had not been diluted by underhanded practices.
For example, the Vancouver copy, which currently sits alone as the single best copy at 9.6, is in reality a manipulated 8.0. The first recorded sale of the 8.0 copy was by Hakes Collectables in 2007. It reappeared with a five-banger grade increase topping the census when Heritage "featured" it for auction in 2014.
References
Heritage Auctions: Daredevil Comics #1 Daredevil Battles Hitler - Vancouver pedigree (Lev Gleason, 1941) CGC NM+ 9.6Hank's Collectables:
- batman_fan, GreatCaesarsGhost, Larryw7 and 1 other
-
2
-
2
-
On 11/25/2020 at 9:05 PM, Gotham Kid said:
Aloha Mitch
and thank you for the scan comparison.
Aloha, Peter! And no problem... Hope all is well with you and yours. 🤙
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
11 hours ago, Bronty said:23 hours ago, tth2 said:I do think Heritage deserves a huge amount of credit for providing an extensive database with scans and prices that is accessible to all, despite knowing that information about a book's history could impact its price. The same can't be said for their competitors.
Absolutely, although I don’t think that’s altruistic . I think I recall reading that it was a condition of some past legal settlement (although I don’t recall for sure). Regardless, it’s welcome.
I tend to agree. The Heritage archives are so littered with before and after images of apparent comic book manipulation it's mindboggling. I have long suspected since the early days that maintaining an online archive of past auctions is a litigation risk measure. Jim Halperin himself seemingly alluded to a potential legal argument in his response to the 2005 Forbes Magazine about his business practices:
"As far as I know, Heritage is also the only auction company that maintains a free, fully searchable Past Auction Archive, with photography. Obviously, with hundreds of thousands of past coin sales, and message boards on the PCGS and NGC sites, it is no great challenge to find coins from past auctions that have subsequently been upgraded and reconsigned, even if such items comprise a very small percentage of the total. If Heritage were trying to do anything sneaky, why would we provide all the evidence in such an easy-to-research form?"
What Forbes Didn't Tell You: https://www.ha.com/c/ref/halperin.zx?type=surl-forbes#1foot
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 11/25/2020 at 7:21 PM, lou_fine said:The only question which I have is that for the life of me, I simply can't figure out which one of these scans here would be more truly reflective of the book's real colors?
I believe the 9.0 image is the accurate representation. Digitally it portrays a more realistic rendering of the book, its colors, and the apparent defects of the cover.
The 9.4 front and back cover images are aesthetically pleasing. No doubt about that. The book looks amazing, like it just rolled off a 1940 printing press. The deep reds, blacks, and vibrant yellows of the front cover, and the blinding whites of the back cover are key to this interpretation. However, these scans display an almost (too) prefect 80-year-old four color comic book. The imagery looks great for advertising purposes, but in my opinion these digital renderings appear to be misleading and misrepresent the subject.
Below is a side-by-side photo manipulation comparison of the 9.0 copy. The before image on the left has several callouts highlighting a few defects, to include soiling/smudges, a dust shadow running horizontally along the bottom left edge, and a small, faint dust shadow running vertically along the lower right edge for a short distance. The after image on the right was adjusted slightly using a "one step photo fix" enhancement. This photo manipulation technique, which took just a click of a button, added color saturation, brightness, and focus which positively improved the yellows, reds, and blacks thereby creating an enhanced visual. The effect subdued or masked the aforementioned defects and rendered a more pleasing book appearance with much better eye appeal.
It's important to note that the 9.0 image is a degraded image with reduced pixels resulting in loss of quality. It appears to have been resized and optimized (compressed) from an original scan in order to reduce the file size for storage and transmission. There is only so much digital enhancement that can be done to it before it appears unnatural and overtly manipulated.
Having said that, I am not suggesting that Heritage intentionally manipulated the 9.4 images post original scanning, as Dupcak was notorious for doing. What I am saying, in my estimation, is that the scanner settings used for this subject, and many others that have been offered as evidence by auction winners over the course of several years, are set to induce enhanced color and automatically adjust saturation to make colors in the image appear more pure and vivid. Nonetheless, one can clearly see that the application of photo fixing techniques, either before or post scanning, can render comparable results apparent in the 9.4 imagery.
-
25 minutes ago, szav said:
Also interesting to see, though others don’t seem to care about it, the recessed staple in the 9.0. I still don’t know if that’s a pressing induced defect, manufacturing thing, or naturally aging comic book thing.
Damage can and does result from mechanical pressing in the form of impacted (recessed) staples. I have documented many cases displaying this defect. It is one of several characteristics to look for when examining before and after imagery to determine manipulation. It's hard to say whether that's the case with this book, though.
- Randall Dowling, szucchini and tth2
-
1
-
2
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
31 minutes ago, comicdonna said:I won't buy from Heritage these days due to the amped up scans.
Clearly, the front and back 9.4 scans appear juiced with saturation creating a more colorful and vibrant presentation.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Took another deep dive into the digital abyss... came up with this.
The 3rd 9.0 image is presented as discovered. The 9.4 image is resized for the purpose of side-by-side comparison...
-
21 minutes ago, Crowzilla said:31 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:
Astrometic says he has the pic.
Which is great since not even Masterchief has that photo.
Can't wait to see pic of 3rd 9.0. Very curious to see how that book appeared before grade transformation.
- astrometric, Chicago Boy, Larryw7 and 1 other
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, G.A.tor said:1 hour ago, woowoo said:
I don't think this is an upgrade from 1 of the 9.0 copy's. The 9.4 has spring issue cut off right at the top the 2 9.0's don't
If 1 of the 9.0 copy's had an upgrade the the top spring issue would be the same.
its the 3rd 9.0 upgraded to 9.4...not these 2
Yup...that's right.
I looked for the third 9.0 copy when the first 9.0 was upgraded in 2011. Couldn't find it.
I searched again yesterday. No luck.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, tth2 said:Maybe this book really is fresh to market, which would be awesome. Unfortunately, the sad reality is that virtually every major high grade book that has come to market during the past decade turned out to be a recycle job.
A total of three 9.0 copies of Batman #1 have been certified by CGC.
Copy #1 appeared on the census January 8, 2004.
Copy #2 appeared July 12, 2004.
Copy #3 appeared May 9, 2007.
One copy was recycled in August of 2011 and became a 9.2. The 9.0 version was removed from the census. (Certification number is not searchable)
Another 9.0 copy was removed in November 2020.
The 9.4 copy was graded on November 2, 2020.
This is the remaining 9.0 copy on the census. The certification number is searchable.
-
- Popular Post
On 11/17/2020 at 7:49 AM, buttock said:On 11/17/2020 at 4:39 AM, ThothAmon said:Who doesn’t want a sweet Detective 2 (CGC 7.0) and 26 (CGC 5.5) but both seem generously graded. The 2 looks like restoration was removed (leaving dried glue behind) with the scrape and dig technique and still somehow managed a 7.0 and the 26 ...
It's really maddening that this is now not only acceptable, but it's ignored in the grading process. It's clear that the graders have deliberately chosen to ignore the chunks dug out of books like this. If you want to get rid of the restoration, then that's on you I guess. But for CGC to encourage defacing by giving gift grades is just unethical.
Seldom have I seen the universal after grade exceed that of the restored before grade.
Subject book appears to have undergone a fair amount of invasive removal work... -
4 hours ago, lou_fine said:
I believe the one that you are looking for would be the Manufactured Gold thread which is the granddaddy of them all.
Since my Search ability is rather limited, you would need one of the other boardies such as @MasterChief to hunt it down for you who is the expert when it comes to these types of things.
The Manufactured Gold thread is currently on page 1761 of the Comics General forum (when sorted by "start date").
CGC Forum pages are dynamic, meaning the page number will change as new threads are created/updated on a daily basis, thus pushing the MG thread deeper into the abyss and to a higher page number.
The topic forum page with MG listed is linked below. Although the thread is locked, the creation date, number of replies, number of views, and the thread itself is readable.
- lou_fine, Lurker89, BlowUpTheMoon and 1 other
-
4
-
- Popular Post
In her article The Restoration of Comic Books: 1982-2002, noted restoration expert Susan Cicconi wrote: “I truly feel that once you remove staples from a comic book, you are altering the book; therefore, I would consider this restoration. ...Noticing that staples have been removed from a comic book will always open a book up to suspicion as to whether anything else may have been done to the cover or interior pages.”
In 2006, the Manufactured Gold thread presented two particular cases dealing with disassembly. One was a prepositional study to a bonified example. The latter drove a response by then CGC President and Primary Grader, Steve Borock.
The links to these two cases, and the responses by Borock, are below.
-
Big Apple Copy (April '57)
- Frisco Larson, OtherEric and damonwad
-
3
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
From the Overstreet Collection (April '53)
-
Some great looking books being posted.
If you're interested, Alter Ego #28 was dedicated to all things Maneely back in September of 2003.
The issue is packed full of info and art with commentary by Roy Thomas, a career perspective by Michael J. Vassallo, a heartfelt piece by Maneely's youngest daughter Nancy, and a remembrance by Stan Lee.
You can preview the mag here: https://issuu.com/twomorrows/docs/alter_ego__28
And you can order a PDF copy for $4.99 here: https://twomorrows.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=123_139_141&products_id=479&zenid=bf9e372cdb1ae0cca2116e0367c823e2
and thank you for the scan comparison.
If 1 of the 9.0 copy's had an upgrade the the top spring issue would be the same.
They're Still Out There!
in Golden Age Comic Books
Posted · Edited by MasterChief
My interest in the work done on the Catman Comics #28 led me to flip for the grader notes. While I don't think it's appropriate that I post the entirety of the notes, I will mention that CGC is calling the distributor marking "pedigree coding."