James J Johnson

This would have me wondering too. Wondering about why Kirby would draw, not write; draw, an oddly segmented and shaky 4 piece 'J' with atypical lift points indicative of starting and stopping. And why, as an artist, with all that white area to sign in, why he would start his signature so close to the portraiture and at an angle that the top of his sugnature would run into the portraiture and his imprinted signature. Also, the signature appears to be drawn, not written; drawn, in very close proximity to the imprinted signature to make copying it an easier task. IMO, odds of this being by a hand other than Kirby = 80/20. Lots of red flags here, IMO

On this book, it looks like the intent wasn't just to tack the cover back on, but to seal the crack where the cover meets the pages, almost like the use of caulking around a bathtub or tiles, which is what it looks more like than glue, "nothing exceeds like excess", I imagine.

I tend to believe that staple placement will have the final say in the matter of a rounded spine with a sideways U-shape, like this: ( , versus a "crushed" spine with a V-shape more like this: < Books that have the staples positioned dead center on the edge of the spine, at the midpoint between what constitutes the front and back cover will almost always have a V-shape, like this: < , pressed or unpressed, unless there is a spine roll present. So before allowing the V or U shapes of a spine to be a determining tell for press or "crush", the placement of the staples, relative to the edge of the spine should always be considered.

No. In this case, that is the cover that this book was manufactured with, which became completely separated and was reglued using either some brand of epoxy that dries "white", or a combination of Elmer's + White-out, maybe even paper glue and white acrylic paint. Seeing what was done and that this is the original, formerly separated cover is easy. To analyze exactly what susbstance or combination of substances was used to reattach the cover would require the book in hand. My feeling is that if we had the exterior images of the book, finding an image of it once slabbed could be done, because chances are 95%+ that it once was slabbed with the notes, "cover detached". Either a lesser grade blue label or a middle grade green label, prior to the horrific Frankenglue-job.

Be confident, Mr. Z. There are 9 distinct formation issues with this signature, any one of them that you will never find in any legit Lee signature from any era.

Are you a good guesser? Take a wild guess about when the next time will be when I offer assistance to anyone asking a question. Then take that guess and multiply it by irony X infinity.

Because the book had little value, that is, significantly less value it would have had without the Stan Lee "signature", which is why the forgers typically raid the "bargain boxes", low grade, low demand books for their signature fodder.

Why would someone willingly wish to do harm to a hobby? My presence here in this thread is to answer a fellow forum member's question about what the heck he was seeing on his Annual 2. I gave a concise answer to that. Nobody else appeared to be certain of what it is, however, I am sure of what it is thus answered his questions. To go into greater detail than I did would serve to instruct others on how the things I can readily identify can be remedied. That's a thing that would serve no one's best interests other than someone trying to cover tracks being given instructions by proxy on how to do it. Being able to identify raw books that were previously slabbed can come in handy when investigating provenance of a particular book. Giving away that tool and how to defeat it would be foolish and not in the spirit of serving the hobby's best interests, a strong hobby state being of paramount significance to all.

I understand. The dilemma being that type of intel will also benefit those who wish to use it not for the greater good.

No. That is unaffected by both the slabbing process, transit, and storage, unless possibly a weight was substantial enough to compress it was placed atop it. It's something else, and fairly obvious in this case. It's also one of several tells that can positively identify previously slabbed raw books and their images.

This cover looks to me like it was completely separated from the pages prior to the glue/epoxy/paste job. The book was not manufactured with adherent that would look like that, even if overly and sloppily applied. This sealant is unlike any other I've ever seen used during the 1960s in the assembly/production of these annuals. We might as well be discussing a book held together with nuts, bolts, washers, and debating whether or not being manufactured with nuts, bolts, and washers holding it all together is possible. This is completely atypical of manufacturing norms and is obviously the byproduct of after-production manipulation.

I've never seen anything even remotely like that before, unless an annual cover was very sloppily and overly Elmer-glued back on, which this appears to be. Also, I see tell-tale signs that this was at one time in a graded slab. There's no external image of the comic to match up to images of past slabbed green and purple label Annual 2s, but my feeling is that if you run an extensive search, chances favor your being able to find an online image of this book in its likely previously slabbed state.

IMO, your concerns are well justified. Regardless of the fluidity, the absence of hesitation, there are 9 blazing red flags here. the combination of any two of the nine, IMO, pointing to this not being Stan's track.

i wholeheartedly agree. The Devil is usually hiding in the details. Quite often enough, literally, in plain sight. And I already know you're probably not going to believe this but I've seen it happen time and time again, shudder to think, right?. History is an endless loop. A conveyor belt. Nothing is new. Be vigilant and above all, beware:

No. It doesn't appear to resemble any distinct overspray patters typically encountered, but......... the spray must start to run out at some point; a weakened stream, or paint sputtering out of the nozzle in the process of running dry, so that might be what we're seeing here. No way to know the exact cause for sure. As has been stated, the application appears to be completely at random, thus no improvement, either deliberate or accidental to any defects as would be typical with the application of what CGC would consider color-touch.

One glance is all it takes at this point. Not trimmed. No question about it. Send to CGC in complete confidence. It will not return trimmed.

And there are no lack of examples. A low to middle grade book with a veinous network of color-braking fractures, and yet someone saw fit to try their hand at concealing 1/100oth of the fractures with a few swaths of ink. Why bother, right? No improvemnet at all really, and yet will garner a purple label and rightfully so. Effective or ineffective color touch can generate a purple label as it should be..

But this has been covered before. Suggestions of acquiring a Sharpie signature over existing ink/color touch?

I agree with the wizard

If it was glue, likely the tear wouldn't still be evident. It would appear to be tamped down and tacked in place slightly more than it does.

That's what I see. Matter upon the surface of the paper that may be as simple to remove as moistening a piece of tissue and carefully testing the central part of the area to see if any dislodes on the tissue, q-tip, or other type of only slightly abrasive swab or swath.

Is there any sign of soak/bleed through to the inside of the front cover where that spot in question is located? Also, does whatever the coloration is look like it is absorbed into the surface, or just resting on the surface? Because to me, it looks like the latter. And if so, immediate remedy may be an option.

Absolutely. Might be a good indicator for some color touch but not conclusive for all. Eyeballs + light + magnification + experience in detecting it.