James J Johnson

This. And even when only cream colored and not necessarily tan or seemingly brittle, broken off corners seem to plague this 1956 through 1962 range of DC books, which in most cases seems to be DC's production equivalent of Marvel chipping. Unlike Marvels, the early DC silver age books very often have the long edge of the cover overhanging the inside pages, unlike the early Marvels that have their overhang at the top (and/or sometimes the bottom). Chipping of those corners is common on the DCs.

Strong colors will probably pull this up from a technical 2.5 to a 3.0. Nice to see them when they still have the original blazing red and deep plum colors.

Spine is a beauty, but is that a tear at the bottom of the front cover (the white lines), creases, stresses, or just the scanner bed? Also, staple holes right top area of front cover? Thumb creases, tears on the right edge of the front cover? If that is what I mentioned, the overall structure will bring up the grade for those defects noted, but probably not past 5.5, IMO.

Like the scans of the Action 252, cut off on top. It would be much better to have scans that show the full top of the book, both front and back.

Need both front and back cover scans that don't cut off the top of the book, please.

This!

The spine and structure of the book are nice enough that even with that much water damage, I'd go 3.0 to 3.5 on it. I can't see it making 4.0 (an otherwise 7.0 with moisture damage) because it's soaked right through, front to back. The book would have to be otherwise almost flawless to get up to 4.0 with those tide lines and amount of soak-through.

I've gotten Neal's signature in person on multiple occasions and I do collect autographs so I'm familiar with Neal's signature and many others, and anyone else who is familiar with Neal will recognize the vibe immediately as Neal's track.

I thought Sir Walter Scott was quoting Stan Lee!

A lot of wear, a lot of long creases. About 2.5 in my estimation, possible CGC 3.0 ('Neal Adams' written on cover as label notes). Though an authentic Adams signature, it won't get a signature series label. The signing has to be CGC witnessed for that.

Bumped to the top, to keep the thread on page 1 and maintain a prime position on google search for potential buyers and previous buyers of Stan Lee forgeries who google Tonfulle-84, until the inevitable conclusion.

1-100. 100 issues of Silver age Spider-man, a nice, round number. I've always thought as 1-100 representing Spider-man's silverage. The introduction of Morbius in 101, the first of the bronzeage Spider-man issues, Morbius being a bronze age character. The issue 100 itself seems to close the chapter on the silverage for Spider-man and the introduction of Morbius in the next issue opens a new one.

Thank you for the compliment. I am a winner. Have to give you credit for picking up on that without really knowing anything about me. But I sincerely doubt you'd have much fun hanging around with me. I'm respectful of others so you'd have a very boring time hanging with me.

And lest we forget, just so nobody has to backtrack, here's a reminder of your attitude about a seller defrauding fellow hobbyists who think they're getting something of value for their money. In your own words: "I hope the guy makes 10k a week. It doesn't bother me what someone else is doing. this guy or that guy is not paying my bills, so I could care less about what their doing! I think it's hilarious people are that dumb to buy the junk!"

Overestimating oneself and underestimating others is the leading cause of landing behind bars, not poor spelling.

Absolutely a textbook 4.0 + a GA, 1 tic bump = 4.5.

Yes. Amateur color touch (that's ink visible inside the spine, soaking through from the front). And it appears to have been trimmed along the top and bottom as well, not just the cover but the whole shebang, cover and pages.

The 2nd reintroduction of Cap and Subby. Atlas/Timely/Marvel tried to revive both Cap and Subby in the 50s. As far as character importance, chronologically, the Sub-Mariner was the first Marvel comic super-hero created, if we don't count Ka-Zar (also in Marvel Comics #1), who was introduced in a pulp years earlier than 1939. One thing to consider is the rarity. Though neither Silver age book is rare by any means by comparison to any single Golden age Timely Cap or Subby issue, 1962 Marvels in any grade are more of a rarity than 1964 Marvels, by 1964 Marvel production enjoying a serious upswing in numbers from 1962 production amount. FF #4 is by far the more difficult acquisition and although still leaving much to be desired as far as printing quality control, by 1964, the tolerances of production a little more precise than in 1962.

A lot of general wear, cover wrinkling, a well-read comic. VG, 4.0 area.

Just about the same commentary applies here that I just wrote about the IF 15 from the same owner. I'll copy and paste that here to save a re-write: My IF 15 synopsis: "If it's not artifact, being generated from the surrounding browns of the wood background and cover color, those staples look to be almost the same hue as those browns surrounding them. In which case, if rust, it's probably to a degree that also affects the blades of the staples clasping the centerfold and probably oxidizing the paper as well. If that's not the case, around VG is right, a lot of wear and crinkles in the cover for a bronzeage book, and if that is rust, much less, how much less dependent upon that degree of rust, say from 2.0 to 3.0."

If it's not artifact, being generated from the surrounding browns of the wood background and cover color, those staples look to be almost the same hue as those browns surrounding them. In which case, if rust, it's probably to a degree that also affects the blades of the staples clasping the centerfold and probably oxidizing the paper as well. If that's not the case, around VG is right, a lot of wear and crinkles in the cover for a bronzeage book, and if that is rust, much less, how much less dependent upon that degree of rust, say from 2.0 to 3.0.

The first 10 or so Overstreet Price Guides had written treatises on grading, the early, formative years of gradually codifying and fine tuning a grading scale for comics. The main tenet was always, "Grade a book on it's whole". Which to me always meant that the back cover was as important as the front and not only weaknesses but strengths as well should be considered in rationalizing an overall, cover to cover grade.

Which is why it will score higher than 0.5. 0.5 is the typical domain of books with massive tape on the spine holding it together, major pieces missing altogether, a rip right across the cover and inside pages, usually a combination of all that. it's the poorest condition a comic can grade, none lower, unless it's a book of any grade missing a page, that didn't get placed under a green label in lieu of a 0.5. As it is still a nice comic, and appears to be solid and still readable at whim, it could be worse. A lot worse. 0.5 worse. The lowest possible grade. Which this isn't, and why I respectfully and subjectively disagree. In my estimation, it could be worse. Those moist basement storage spots at the bottom right could be far worse and obliterate most of the art of the cover, but doesn't, and then it would qualify for 0.5. Unless a page is out or a cover missing and replaced with a photocopy, 0.5 is a real rag, CGC's lowest possible grade. This book just isn't the worst I can imagine, which was the basis for my opinion.

A very colorful and attractive 1.5. Too many cumulative defects, which on their own, that are indicative of 2.0 and 3.0 books to call it any higher technically than 1.5, but might pull a 2.0 because no pieces, no tape, no major tears. A lot of moisture damage, rusted solid staples, and a healthy spine roll with an otherwise structural 3.0 quality = 1.5/1.8, outside chance of 2.0 if lenient that day.