James J Johnson

It's for good reason. More flaws = more factors for consideration, a tougher read on the whole. A tiny flaw or two, or sound except for a crease or tanning is much easier than factoring the individual degree of each of many flaws, how they cumulatively affect each other and interact with the strengths of the book, which also should be considered. Overstreet always reminded us, "grade a book on it's/a whole", which means all factors, including the strengths as well as the weaknesses. The more factors there are to consider, the more difficult to combine them all to reach a decision.

Great paper quality, solid back cover, mostly all the wear appears to be contained to that 1" west of the spine area. Not real damaging to the structure of the book, but too much fracturing to fit the straight mid-grade area, so I'll go 5.0 on it, a 4.5 to 5.0 with that little upward push for Golden age with great colors and quality.

How in the heck did he get that correct? There's my odds on pick for this year's grading champ right there.

Before you regret eating all that, you were right! 3.0! I'm impressed, and that isn't easy.

This. He's not even a third rate forger.

The three exemplars posted above may appear similar to some, maybe many, but the differences are glaring enough for anyone with Stan's signature clocked to tell which are his handwriting and which one clearly isn't. The vibe is wrong. The formation is wrong. The one common element os that all of Tonfulle-84's Stan Lee forgeries have the same vibe. His. It's his handwriting, in a failing attempt to forge Stan Lee's.

Exactly! And posted merely to illustrate that grading is not a science; it's subjective.

Flawed logic. Not just Lee, but a model for any signature found online may be a forgery. I've seen more examples of this than I can count, where a forger copied someone's signature from a forgery. What are you going to base Lee's on? CGC signature series authenticated examples? How long has he been signing these? Like the first example you posted, which is authentic? What about pre-signature series Lee exemplars?

I would put together a study of exactly how Stan's signature has progressed from the 70s to present. I was just about to start doing that as I have authentic Stan Lee signatures from just about every year for the last 50 years, and if I don't own one myself, I have accurate exemplars to fill in the years I don't own. I was going to do that, in fact, I started to, and then I realized, "Wait a minute". Let the forgers do their own R&D, I'm not going to provide a Stan Lee forger's guide and tutorial for them to aid them in their fraud. Let them make the obvious chronological errors that readily identify forgeries. As much as my doing so will help others identify Lee forgeries, it will also assist the forgers. Suffice it to say that the one in the middle is a Tonfulle-84 forgery, I have his handwriting clocked.

Today's equivalent of those multiple signed team sets are full cast signed movie posters. 95% of them on Ebay are NG.

+1. I agree. But we'll see after a few more responses.

We've examined a bunch of lower grade books in the past week or so, so I thought this one might be fun to discuss:

Golden Record also produced FF 1, AS 1, and JIM 83 in the same format. A non-periodical comic like this, also issued in 1966, part of the record, sealed within the wrap. None have prices, they were included with the record.

Also, since this is not a periodical for newsstand consumption and part of a record, the ads and text pages, like fan letters, etc. that would normally be included in the newsstand issue are not here. The inside is different. Less pages. Just the story itself and as mentioned, the back cover and inside covers make mention of other products offered. Also, this is not as in the case of pence copies. It was issued 2 years or so after the newsstand release of Avengers 4 and only offered as part of the record, sealed within the wrap.

Yes. Which is why my first post named it as the GR AV 4 and not an Avengers 4. I assumed the OP knew and if he didn't, I hate to be the one to burst bubbles.

They don't match any of his very slight stylistic changes over the past 50 years. Some elements of Stan's signature have remained the same for many decades and this seller's forgeries don't have any of the constants. The seller has an endless supply on bargain box dreck, in this way, if he blows one (well, he's blowing them all, but if his perception is that he didn't get it right), he can throw it into the trash at a very insignificant loss. He's able to procure them for such a low price that he can sell them at his $10 to $60 going rate, his typical Lee forged signature ending at $30. No COA. No mention of where the signature is obtained. The whole operation stinks to high heaven and the autos are horrible forgeries. Anyone who has gotten Stan's signature in person, multiple times over the years knows it. He's forging these in a style closer to Stan's 1980s style, but he's doing on comics newer than that, an anachronistic impossibility.

I think I'm seeing a small split at the bottom of the spine's edge? If so, 5.5 based on what else I can see in detail, and if that's not a split, I too am in the 6.0/6.5 camp, but it's guesswork for me as I can't see the fine details of the white portion of the spine.

Some care more about the label than the book. Some pay outrageously more for, choosing to add an inferior "9.2" over a superior 8.5, for the sake of registry points or bragging rights. Not wrong if that pleases them, but the higher label number doesn't always get you the better book. Most Church 9.0s will blow away non-Pedigree 9.4s visually, as an example. And this, IMO, is because we have a unilateral grading system based far too much more on cumulative defects than overall quality. A grade number and letter for such grading intangibles as color would have been great, for instance, where a Church Mile high is an "A+" and that Journey into mystery 83 with the faded colors is a 'D'. Then you would have a combinatory, more comprehensive grade, like diamonds, one aspect for defect, and the other for a combo of storage, production, color, etc., i.e. overall quality.

Any way to repost pics without some of the haze. I'm not getting a clear look at especially the white area of the spine on this GR AV 4. Do you have a way to uptick the clarity?

IMO, it's great centering for 129. Usually, these are seen with that wide, left border, a back cover wraparound like the illusion that the backboard is creating. And they're typically angled. IMO, this book presents better and is mechanically superior when the art of the front cover at least meets the fold of the spine and wraps slightly around. Less to go wrong visually, from the front cover perspective.

It's point detractive, A. The degree of deduction dependent upon it's severity. It's damage. Try to find and review the CGC - Joe and Nadia Mannerino collection labeled S.A. books. These are very sound books for the most part, most with 9.0 to 9.6 structure, exhibiting very, very little actual wear. But, most have moderate edge toning, thus rightfully grade 8.0 to 8.5 at the most. The dust/heat/sun shadows are in the same boat, treated very similarly.

It can make 4.0, it is possible. I'd put the technical grade at 3.5, a real eye catching 3.5, so with a little G.A. bump, a CGC 4.0 can easily become a reality on this one, IMO.

Ahsoka is right. generating a 9.8 as a result from that search for that diamond in the ruff becomes more fulfilling than simply buying it ready made. But in all candor, you have to do the searching yourself. No matter how many pictures you see of an item, grading is a three-dimensional art, which is why books must be submitted to the CGC for grading and it can't be officially done, off the cuff as we do, from 2 dimensional images alone. When you grade off the monitor, you're grading through many layers of glass, your monitor, the seller's imaging equipment, i.e., multiple layers, each of which can add their own element of distortion. Successfully hunting for 9.8 big game is most successfully accomplished hands on.

JJ or Triple-J.

It's Yvette Vickers on the cover, of the "Attack of the 50 foot Woman" fame.