RockMyAmadeus

I saw it for free and wanted my money back That should be turned into a meme. My favorite one! Thanks Chris I wanted to give you a nice selection to choose from. via Imgflip Meme Maker

You sure...? Sometimes you sure seem like one...

There are quarter boxes at every convention. They may be going out of style, but they still exist.

The prices people are paying for "quarter books" these days is just astonishing. If someone had told anyone on the CGC board ten years ago that people would be paying $80 for a raw copy of Suicide Squad #48, the laughter would have gone on for 5 years. Book hasn't been a quarter for years. I bought one about 4 years ago for Overstreet price at the time, maybe $4. Sold it recently for a handsome bit more. Sold with a couple of hours. Must have been priced aggressively. Thank you, Mr. Literal. it's always been one of the more valuable books in the run, that and #23. I remember passing on #1 many times. When you say "always", what do you mean? Since it came out? That's not the case. Suicide Squad was a drek title that was cancelled after 5 years and 66 issues. I was never a hit, and always sold in very low numbers. Cap City orders for #23 were 11,500. The best sales the title ever had was the early 1990 Batman crossover, starting with issue #40. After that, back down. Cap City orders for #48 were 11,550, with a tiny boost from the Joker cover. Then, the title sat in obscurity for nearly a couple of decades. The first CGC sale of #23 recorded at GPA was for a 9.4 ($47) in 2005. Between 2005 and 2012, there were 6 total sales in all grades. Sure, that it has "always been one of the more valuable books of the run" may be true, but it's like saying "Justice League #18 is one of the more valuable books of the JL (1987) run." The whole run didn't have much value for a long time, and Oracle wasn't much of anything until just a couple of years ago. So, I think it's safe to call it a "quarter book" if it actually WAS a quarter book from 1991 to 2012 or thereabouts.

Fun factoid: ASM #365 is the only issue of Amazing Spiderman ever to break the million copy print run barrier.

The prices people are paying for "quarter books" these days is just astonishing. If someone had told anyone on the CGC board ten years ago that people would be paying $80 for a raw copy of Suicide Squad #48, the laughter would have gone on for 5 years. Book hasn't been a quarter for years. I bought one about 4 years ago for Overstreet price at the time, maybe $4. Sold it recently for a handsome bit more. Sold with a couple of hours. Must have been priced aggressively. Thank you, Mr. Literal.

Personal attacks are never warranted, at any time, for any reason, under any circumstances. If you don't like what someone says, or the amount of what they say, or the way they express themselves...ignore them. Complaining about it, and attacking people about it, makes you just as guilty as the one you're complaining about and attacking. If you have to scroll through pages of "you are ignoring this user", so what? It's not that hard. Everyone has the right to post as much as they want, as often as they want, with as many or few words as they want, provided they are operating within the rules of the board. If anyone has a problem with that, the proper channel is to take it to the moderators...not by making personal attacks. And it is no one's business but the moderators as to how, why, what, and where anyone posts. I'm amazed that this even needs to be stated. That is your opinion, and is not an opinion shared by others. And your opinion has no more authority than anyone else's. And, I suspect your claim that one has "rebut(ted) every single positive post" isn't accurate, either.

The last discussion I had on this movie was with Gatsby over what we thought the movie would do in domestic and foreign grosses. He said his thoughts on it based upon whatever ideas he has and I said mine We went back and forth. How is that beating a dead horse? Bausch's posted more than anyone in this thread, why isn't THAT beating a dead horse. See how you've been manipulated? I shared my thoughts and Bosco has convinced you I'm aggressive and taking over the thread and forcing people to only see things from my view. It's silly. I'm entitled to share my thoughts as much as anyone. Yup. And there's an antidote to people who think someone is "taking over a thread"...ignore them, and then continue chatting with others as you desire. No one can "take over" anything unless other people let them. All this sturm und drang about how and what other people post...it's quite wacky.

Chuck, let it go. You peeling apart paragraphs and sentences so you can show how right you are As Chuck said (and better than I've ever said it), this is done so that specific points are specifically and directly addressed, rather than "hid(ing) behind generalities that manipulative people use", which is rampant anywhere people gather to share opinions. Those who complain about "dissecting" do so not because "dissecting" makes points harder to understand...on the contrary, it addresses each point directly and (usually) clearly, just as in any proper debate: comment, rebuttal, point by point. That's how it works. No, they complain because it forces them out of hiding behind those generalities, and makes them address those specific points directly, which is not what they want to do....because being specific is 1. hard, and 2. requires commitment. It has nothing whatsoever to do with someone trying to "show how right they are." Doesn't EVERYONE who posts an opinion think that opinion is "right"? Yes, of course they do, or they wouldn't post it. So, isn't everyone "trying to show how right they are" when they post? Not in so direct terms, but yes, of course they are. That's how dialogue works. So, you saying Chuck is only "trying to show how right he is" is a manipulative attempt to get other people to dismiss Chuck's statements. It says to the uninquisitive "huh...yeah, that Chuck guy thinks he's a know-it-all, doesn't he!" And your untruth becomes belief in others, which is exactly what you intended. Rather than attacking the merits of Chuck's argument, you attack Chuck personally, in the hopes that invalidating the person will invalidate his arguments, without actually having to responsibly reason out why you believe his argument is invalid. What business is it of anybody except the moderators and the board owners how much "board space" is "burned up" by anyone, on any topic, for any reason, provided they are operating within the rules of the board? None. Saying that is, again, an attempt to manipulate people into agreeing with you. "Yeah, that guy DOES type/post a lot. He's burning up valuable board space!" as if board space is a limited commodity that should be "preserved" for "legitimate" opinions only. If you think that "board space" could be better used to discuss the movie, then by all means, do that. Neither Chuck nor anyone else is preventing you from using your own virtually unlimited board space to discuss whatever you want. If you don't think Chuck's posts should take up "board space", you're free to put him on ignore, and then his will disappear, replaced with a small notice that you're ignoring him. No fuss, no muss. But you think it's appropriate to tell others to "let it go." How's about you "let go" of telling others when and how they should post...? Translation: "Chuck's view is obviously biased, so his opinions should be dismissed" and by "unbiased", you really mean "positive", which isn't unbiased. That's just more manipulation. Manipulation - speaking as if Chuck's opinions are not informed by valid observation and experience, but are made to "help his ego." Manipulation - The unspoken coda to that sentence is "....and it's not at all good" is clear. Manipulation - speaking as if anybody except the moderators has any control over who questions what, rather than reality, which is that anyone is free to question anyone else, at any time, for any reason, within the (admittedly loose) structure of the board rules. The comment is specifically designed to give the uninquisitive "skimmers" the impression that Chuck is some sort of totalitarian who doesn't allow anyone to question him, which is not the case for any regular poster on this board, much less Chuck. And there are dozens, if not hundreds, of people who have negative views of others on this board not because of their own direct interactions with those people...but because of comments others have made ABOUT those people, and they couldn't be bothered to find out for themselves. It does real, actual damage when you deliberately misrepresent people. Bosco...I say this not as your enemy, but as a friend, truly: if you didn't take and make these things personal, you wouldn't have these conflicts. It's not about the people discussing. Attack the merits of the argument, not the person making them. A true friend tells you the truth, painful though it may be, while an enemy only flatters you with what you want to hear.

PS: Regarding "ages"....up until *about* 1989-1991, there were only two "ages": Gold and Silver. Gold was defined in the 60's, and Silver was defined in the 70's. "Bronze" didn't become a "thing" until the late 80's/early 90's...before that, it was just modern. So, I'm not quite so sure those who say they "knew" that the Bronze era ended and Copper began as it happened, or shortly thereafter, are accurate. The nomenclature wasn't in place, sure, but beyond that, there was no clearly defined anything after 1956/1961, certainly not in a way that people would agree with as a consensus. "Bronze" was essentially defined throughout the 90's, and was "settled" as starting in 1970 with Conan and GL #76. But those, of course, are slightly more arbitrary and less groundbreaking than Showcase #4 and FF #1. The end of Bronze, beginning of "Copper" and certainly the end of "Copper" is a debate that goes on to this very day. It really is time to abandon the "named" ages and stick with "80's, 90's, 2000's, Teens, etc."

The prices people are paying for "quarter books" these days is just astonishing. If someone had told anyone on the CGC board ten years ago that people would be paying $80 for a raw copy of Suicide Squad #48, the laughter would have gone on for 5 years.

It's funny....not that it changes anything, but buyers complaining that a 9.8 is only a 9.0-9.2 at best... In the bad old days, when a seller described something as "NM/M", and it showed up as "VF/NM to NM-", most everyone was pretty thrilled. Much of the "NM/M" garbage from the bad old days at eBay was VG/F, Fine, F/VF at best....in other words, described as "9.8" (note quotes), and arriving as a 5.0, 6.0, 7.0. Now, one grade level or less, and people aren't happy. I understand...especially if one paid a "9.8" price...but still, it does seem a bit odd when compared to back in the day.

I'd bet anything it is. He sold me a '9.8' copy of a book that was a 9.0-9.2 at best. When I messaged him he said he'd offer a partial refund. Asked me what would it take for me to keep the book. I sent the book back, he then lied and said the book was returned damaged. I was on the phone with Ebay for an hour to get the matter resolved and they even stated there was multiple complaints on that account. Sad part is Ebay has done nothing about it and probably will do nothing about it. Avoid his auctions at all cost. Why were you "on the phone with eBay for an hour"? The drones at eBay have nothing whatsoever to do with resolving disputes, and no one is allowed to talk to "dispute resolution" directly. Why didn't you simply file a "request a refund", and wait for the process to work itself out? That would have taken all of a minute or so. And how do you know the book wasn't actually damaged in return shipping? I haven't heard of eBay siding with a seller on a "Not as described" claim since 2006 or so. You don't like the item, the seller has no choice but to take it back. You can even occasionally get eBay to foot the bill for return shipping. Wasting an hour on the phone with eBay drones accomplishes nothing. It is nearly impossible for a buyer to have eBay decide against them in a "not as described" claim.

But that doesn't prevent you from arguing about the details of the process anyway...? Interesting. I'm not sure why you are going out of your way to be purposely dismissive. That is correct...anybody who convinces people to pay them for doing anything is a professional at that activity. If they aren't good....people won't be paying them for long, will they...? That is your definition. It is not, however, a standard definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professional Professional noun : someone who does a job that requires special training, education, or skill : someone who is a member of a profession : someone who is paid to participate in a sport or activity : someone who has a lot of experience or skill in a particular job or activity

The above hypothetical is pointless to ask or answer since it cannot happen.

What would lead you to believe that? While I suspect the Church collection certainly has more books that are NOT pressed than the average pedigree, it's certainly not true that every Church book has been untouched by pressing. I've never pressed a Church book, but I *have* pressed other pedigrees, and gotten some stellar results. Susan Cicconi, who doesn't press (by itself) anymore, and Matt Nelson (when he does the work himself) are the best pressers in the business. Am I one of the better ones? I just let my results speak for me. Why would you be offended at a comment that has nothing to do with you personally? You essentially said I didn't know what I was talking about a few posts back (You said "everyone knew" that the Church collection "wasn't pressed (common knowledge)"), and you didn't even understand what I was referring to (that is, the stacks Church himself put in the closet as a natural "press" job)...I didn't take offense to that, and it was aimed squarely at me. A professional is someone who earns a living from a specific activity. "Certification", while certainly nice, is not only not necessary, it's not possible in this field. I didn't say detecting *A* press is not possible. I said detecting press jobs reliably and consistently isn't possible. A (single) press job, especially on a poorly pressed book, can be fairly easy to determine. Good press jobs, however, are not, especially across multiple books. And that is precisely the problem. It isn't possible, so it's not going to happen. Have you ever pressed comics? Have you ever had comics pressed? Are you familiar with the process, and what is done? I suspect, from the conversation, you are not. You're talking to a presser who, unlike most pressers, will discuss this openly and honestly. You're talking to someone who agrees that, yes, pressing IS restoration...it's just market acceptable restoration, and doesn't need to be in the same category as additive or subtractive restoration, like color touch, tear seals, trimming, pieces added, and the like. Clearly, based on my record here at the CGC boards, "stigma" is one of the last things I worry about. If you could tell with ABSOLUTE (not just a "high level" of) accuracy that a book has been pressed...and not just put in a bag and board, sat in a stack for 40 years, put under dictionaries, or a cinder block, or whatever...then yes, I would have zero problem with that being on the label. But you cannot, because pressing isn't an additive or subtractive form of restoration, and you can have a book that mimics a very good press job (See: Edgar Church collection once more), that never saw a dry mount press. And because of that, what you're suggesting will never, ever happen, nor should it.

+1 Say the pressers . . . Btw, to my knowledge, RMA doesn't press books himself, he says he submits pressed books. However fine a distinction between doing and endorsing may be. I have pressed books since 2010. And yes, I am a professional presser, so some may believe my view is biased...but having pressed several thousand books at this point, I've seen enough before and after to be able to make a good determination. There are clues....but they are only clues, and not anything concrete in any respect. Is there a certification process before you become a professional presser? Is there a standard, or code of ethics that you guys follow? Or you are just basing this from your personal experience? If someone is willing to pay you for your services, you're a professional. No certification, no standard, no code of ethics, other than the presser's own. That's why you see such a vast range of results from different pressers. There are good pressers....and there are bad pressers. There are meticulous pressers, and there are sloppy pressers. There are very few very, very good pressers, but that requires a certain temperament and mindset that not many people possess. 1. You're incorrect. Several (most?) of the Edgar Church books that are now in slabs have been pressed. 2. I was referring to the "natural press" that the books had from being stacked in a closet for 30-40 years. That was, indeed, a "natural press", and it allowed for several of the books to be 9.6s and 9.8s without any additional work done to them. I'm not dismissing anything you've said. But what you're asking for isn't possible on any sort of legitimate scale. And, eventually, you will not encounter "unpressed" books in slabs outside of those slabbed in the early 00's. There's simply too much money involved for it to be otherwise.

No. Books should be hammered in the grade for improper pressing that is obvious. Other than that, there is no way to know with absolute consistency if a book has been pressed or not. And attempting to do that would cause CGC to lose all credibility. I can set 10 books in front of the best graders CGC has, some pressed and some unpressed, (and I would be honest, and set out books that I have owned since they were printed in, say, 1991), and CGC would not be able to tell which books were pressed and which weren't. I submit books that are pressed to CGC, and I submit books that aren't pressed. Pressing is not detectable with any...and I mean ANY...degree of consistency. You're essentially asking CGC to look for what isn't there. And, since natural processes can often mimic "artificial" pressing (See: Edgar Church collection), there's simply no way to reliably tell. You're asking for something that simply isn't possible. How about CGC just rejecting books that it suspects are pressed? How's that for starters? Kind of like "overhang", or perhaps "micro-trimming" - they just send them back to the submitter. (Never happen - not a good business model). Because 1. CGC doesn't consider pressing to be a problem; 2. Good pressing is virtually indetectable; 3. A ton of books that had never seen a press ever could be "rejected." It's unworkable. Trimming, even micro-trimming, takes material from the book. Overhang creates problems in the slab. Pressing only flattens out what is already there. Nothing is added to or taken away from the book (despite the "philosophical" objections that "bends" and the like were "taken away." "Bends" are not part of the basic material of any comic, except the spine.)

+1 Say the pressers . . . Btw, to my knowledge, RMA doesn't press books himself, he says he submits pressed books. However fine a distinction between doing and endorsing may be. I have pressed books since 2010. And yes, I am a professional presser, so some may believe my view is biased...but having pressed several thousand books at this point, I've seen enough before and after to be able to make a good determination. There are clues....but they are only clues, and not anything concrete in any respect.

No. Books should be hammered in the grade for improper pressing that is obvious. Other than that, there is no way to know with absolute consistency if a book has been pressed or not. And attempting to do that would cause CGC to lose all credibility. I can set 10 books in front of the best graders CGC has, some pressed and some unpressed, (and I would be honest, and set out books that I have owned since they were printed in, say, 1991), and CGC would not be able to tell which books were pressed and which weren't. I submit books that are pressed to CGC, and I submit books that aren't pressed. Pressing is not detectable with any...and I mean ANY...degree of consistency. You're essentially asking CGC to look for what isn't there. And, since natural processes can often mimic "artificial" pressing (See: Edgar Church collection), there's simply no way to reliably tell. You're asking for something that simply isn't possible.

Nor is pressing or micro-trimming, but that hasn't stopped anyone. Point is, it's not necessarily just a hobby to everyone. I wonder at what point will pressing become frowned upon? To me it is restoration. I have several books that would be incredible if pressed but it just feels like restoration (and honestly I'm scared to take the chance and accidentally getting the book ruined). Pressing IS restoration. It is, however, what is called "market acceptable" restoration, which is why, like coin dipping, it doesn't get a purple label when done properly. \ I don't know of anyone using chemicals to press books. It's basically just heat, pressure, and water. Will this eventually have long term issues? Depends on the book and what's done to it. I have nothing against pressing. Hell, I am pretty sure that some of my decent well presenting books were all pressed However, after seeing a few weeks ago I believe that cgc should start disclosing pressing - start at the 10:34 mark. You'll see the guy talking about how the waviness came back after the book was pressed. I'm not sure if this an isolated incident or not but I think it is good business to be upfront with the paying customers. This guy (these?) frequently gives out false information, and people accept it as fact, with no one to challenge them (much like here, except the opportunity to challenge is a lot easier.) Example? In that video alone, this guy claimed that "Web of Spiderman #1 was one of the first appearances of the black costume." Well, I guess if you count the 25th or so as "one of the first", that might be true. Web #1 appeared a full year after ASM #252. And he doesn't just mention it once...he repeats the mistake multiple times. "Then you got all four of the first appearance of the black suit." Not correct. They say "He had four ongoing titles going on at the same time"...which isn't correct, and wouldn't happen until 1990. Unless you count Marvel Tales, which was a reprint title, Spidey had three ongoing titles throughout the 80's. And they frequently make mistakes like this. So, does paper have memory? Yes, it does. Do flaws "come back"? Yes, they do. However...when pressing is done PROPERLY (that is, NOT "quick pressed" or sped through any process at all), then those defects don't come back. But it takes time, and everyone wants their books back NOW NOW NOW!!!!! That's why these defects "come back." You can't stick a book in a press, squash it for a couple of minutes, and then it's done. That's not how it works. And...pressing, when done correctly, is not detectable in any reliable, consistent, meaningful way, so there's no way for CGC to put "pressed" on the label. There are CLUES that a book has been pressed (staples)...but they are only clues, and certainly not conclusive in any way that anybody could tell for sure, and then put on a label.

Nor is pressing or micro-trimming, but that hasn't stopped anyone. Point is, it's not necessarily just a hobby to everyone. I wonder at what point will pressing become frowned upon? To me it is restoration. I have several books that would be incredible if pressed but it just feels like restoration (and honestly I'm scared to take the chance and accidentally getting the book ruined). Pressing IS restoration. It is, however, what is called "market acceptable" restoration, which is why, like coin dipping, it doesn't get a purple label when done properly. \ I don't know of anyone using chemicals to press books. It's basically just heat, pressure, and water. Will this eventually have long term issues? Depends on the book and what's done to it.

Awesome job Ken! That was a tough one...maybe too tough. Nah, not too tough. In fact, I just had my hands on a copy of mine today. I knew it was Astro City (Anderson art), but not which issue.

:whispers: Andy, wiggle your jello slowly if he's standing right behind you.... :whispers: "Is he in the room with you? If so, blink twice!"

It's true. There are many things that are lawful that aren't remotely right. But the law has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. To argue that it is a "tempest in a teapot" to call it what it is: using a service, for which that service charges, without paying for that service, which is stealing...well, that's unfortunate. Many injustices can be justified by "I'm just trying to help." The road to hell, good intentions, etc. Stealing a single grape at the store isn't a big deal in and of itself. But it creates ripples and repercussions that are far, far greater than the value of that single grape. As someone's sigline here says: "Every act of dishonesty has at least two victims: the one we think of as the victim, and the perpetrator as well. Each little dishonesty makes another little rotten spot somewhere in the perpetrator's psyche. - - Lesley Conger"