DoctorWyoming1

I can vouch that while they will not verify a signature without a witness that they will sorta concede that a signature is real. I just got my ASM 1 back, with a Stan signature. I asked that they write "Stan Lee" instead of "Name" and Matt basically said that (Stan) tends to write his name clearly, so they would do that.

Immacuclean works for me, better than steaming actually. Doesn't really help much with foxing or any serious staining though.

I just got back my ASM 1. Of course, you could argue this makes it all more memorable.

@wytshus It's still broken, same message as above, it will not allow you to go to your own sets.

An error occurred during your last request. The error was logged and will be reported to the webmaster automatically.We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused and thank you for your patience.

I keep forgetting to post this one. The funny thing is that after remembering my 316 double cover I recalled buying this one oft the rack and saying "Hey, look, two covers." Yes, I gave away my age here: '' Here is the 316 after a clean and press. The guy who did it was less than amazing, he only cleaned/did a proper press on the outside cover, somehow leaving the inside as a 7.0 I have since bought my own press. Oh, and the good news is that the new slab says "Newstand."

It's still not working. And on the very day I slabbed my ASM 1. What timing.

You nailed it. If they have this info, just give it to their customers. The problem is that whatever behavior that is rewarded will be repeated, and right now they can make money with subpar service. As has already been noted before, until there is a legitimate competitor CGC will most likely even decline from the quality they provide now.

Best I can figure is that someone thought those lines were art?! They sorta go along with shells from Snake Eyes' gun

I agree with the above grade. Subscription folds don't bother me much aesthetically, it's the color breaking monster crease on the bottom right that hurts the book in my eyes. That's what stops it from reaching 5.0 territory.

I'm in the same boat, just glad I'm not literally being saved by a boat right now. My area is a bit north of Sarasota, we're all more focused on those who took damage... no idea of the loss of life yet.

Lotta 9.2s of this. The second cover was the first book my wife - who previously just tolerated comic books - had a reaction to. She told me we should put up as art.

I thought I would just continue this thread as my topic is similar. First, thanks to any boardie who may have put this up for sale. Second, I wonder what sort of grade this might get if one were able to request a blue label. The book looks great to me, happy to have saved 100s on what a blue label 9.2 would have cost me...

Making his digression doubly moot. Or is it Moops? I think the word is Moops.

You mean, 7.0? I thought they were just being informal with me seeing as we are pals by now.

The question concerned whether a superior interior cover would win out over the outside cover. I provided an example demonstrating that it does.

Of course, but they haven't put out anything since the 70s.

Video, as you noted previously, would help too. Pretty easy in a world where even grandma has an iphone. That said, I can only imagine CGC offering to sell you the video of your autograph for 25 bucks....

We have good reasons to doubt it, of course, but it's a high standard that one can respect. It's also easy to follow: either there's a witness or you don't get a yellow label. In business, they call it an "aspirational goal", like giving service with a smile, or your burger is free. And this is precisely why the current debacle hits so hard. And it's why I question why a company with a professed high standard like requiring the witnessing of all signatures,would undermine their credibility with such a trivial issue like acetate covers for one reprint.

Agreed. Honestly, not doing this is an implicit admission that they aren't really following their own rules.

Me too. I agree with it. And what I was trying to say was: They set a high bar, why limbo under it at the very next office party?

I agree! My point was that I agreed with this standard. What I was stressing was that CGC held to a very high and good standard even with a signature that could be verified easily by professional autograph examiners. So why would they want to set up such a high and positive standard only to undermine it? - This was what I was getting at.

Yes, I agree with your take. To be fair, it is difficult to concede to being wrong. Most people react as CGC has - by 'standing by' their decision, then, backtracking a bit, then, moving on to trying to find some face saving compromise. As another boardie noted, if only they had some sort of role model, a HERO type if you will, that they could call upon as a guide. Someone who would make it clear that your first principles are ALWAYS what you should fall back on when facing any tough decision.

I am glad that CGC has responded and at least back tracked a little, if not all the way back. The company that outright refuses to certify a Stan Lee autograph unless they witnessed it themselves (I mean, c'mon, the guy signed a million things in his life, not hard to verify his signature without the need to literally witness it...) ought to consider whether they want to relinquish such a high standard over the labeling of one REPRINT book.