• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.


  • Posts

  • Joined

Posts posted by pirog

  1. On 3/28/2024 at 4:26 PM, Lightning55 said:

    The notation refers to it being a Danish Edition, which it does not appear to be. I think it has been placed there in error. You could contact Customer Service to get it corrected at no cost to you.



    On 3/28/2024 at 4:27 PM, Qalyar said:

    It means you're probably going to want to contact CGC Customer Service and see if they'll let you ship this to them as a Mechanical Error for label correction.

    Edderkoppen is the title of a couple of different Scandinavian -- there are Danish and Norwegian books with that title --  republications of various Spider-Man titles (some Web of Spider-Man, some ASM). There is no book that is titled Edderkoppen #66 that reprints ASM 238. Both the Danish and Norwegian Edderkoppen series DID in fact reprint ASM 238, but as #1 in both languages. Only the Danish series has an issue numbered #66; that's a reprint of Web of Spider-Man #26.

    This book is, of course, an entirely normal US newsstand copy of ASM 238 and not an Edderkoppen anything.

    So this label is pretty whack; not only is it not appropriate for this book, it's not appropriate for any book that actually exists. It's a clear mechanical error and shouldn't cost you anything to have corrected.

    Ok thank you for the clarification on this...greatly appreciated!!!

  2. On 2/22/2024 at 6:46 PM, shadroch said:

    It will be interesting to see how many people bought a price guide only to preserve it by never using it.

    Exactly Shadroch!!! That is why collectibles exist...people consume and don't think to preserve...most preservation is by chance...examples: Toys unopened still in their original box...VHS tapes still sealed and never watched...video games never opened and played with...price guides never read...comics never read...sports and old picture wax packs never opened...the list goes ON AND ON...

  3. On 9/12/2023 at 3:58 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:





    yeah nice example...I use to send all modern comics in without the pressing option and did pretty well until something changed (about year ago) and was getting 9.2-9.4's on what i though were 9.6-9.8...I then experimented with getting all my submissions pressed and I have noticed it does in fact help and in a good number of times helps alot as in your mutant example

  4. On 8/29/2022 at 10:22 AM, Robot Man said:

    Apparently you can’t believe everything you read on the internet or in the news. People were obviously, seduced by the almighty dollar.

    As a kid in the very early ‘60’s, nobody wanted Mantle cards in my area. Kofax and Drysdale were king of the heap. Yankee cards usually ended up in bike spokes. I remember being given a full shoebox of early ‘50’s cards from my cousin. I often wonder if that card was in there…

    Right on!

  5. On 8/29/2022 at 8:47 AM, shadroch said:

    Kids used to wrap their cards with rubber bands and Pasko was the first card, so many of his cards have damage as kids evidently kept their cards in numerical order.


    Yep and they also put their cards in bicycle spokes to make a repetitive cardboard stuttering sound...

  6. On 8/25/2022 at 6:13 PM, Catdaddy34 said:

    Cracked open an ASM 252 cgc grade was 9.6.

    Pressed and cleaned by CCS and it comes back a 9.2

    I think time for a break until they get it together 

    Been CONSISTENTLY sending in books on a monthly basis for 3 years now and just within the last 3-4 months grades on modern 80's and 90's books and are ON AVERAGE 0.2-0.6 lower than the previous two years...maybe just me but seems  a few others are noticing this as well:frown:..undergrading is just as disheartening as overgrading

  7. On 7/16/2022 at 7:34 PM, valiantman said:

    The Bloodshot numbers are from Comichron, for direct edition numbers from Diamond Distributors.

    Example: Bloodshot #49 is estimated at about 9,800 made, which comes from the 12.7 index on Comichron for February 1996, where each index is estimated to be 660 copies.  12.7 times 660 = 8,382


    Valiant (Acclaim) was exclusive to Diamond at that point, so the 9,800 estimate for direct editions is possibly too high, since 8,382 is the Comichron estimate is about 15% lower than the 9,800 estimate on the Valiant site.

    Wow...nice knowledge addition to this post...I read alot of your posts regarding valiant books and probably have tripled my knowledge regarding them so far...for sure the late bloodshots as well as other late valiant books are nice to "collect" from a scarcity standpoint...the newsstands of some of these valiant books are very tough to come by especially in nice condition (as you pointed out)...sometimes a "collectible" can be "too scarce" to reach a critical mass so more than just a handful of people can enjoy...i.e. you need a collector base to further thrive the collectibility of things...i looking forward to the bloodshot Part 2 movie hopefully coming out soon as well as others...this helps the valiant universe of characters as EVERYONE can partake and know such as Marvel and DC stuff...enjoy your evening Mr. Valiant

  8. On 7/16/2022 at 7:00 PM, Lazyboy said:

    Factor in what Newsstand scarcity? All the numbers you posted are complete and utter garbage with no relation to reality. How are there so many of you people who believe these absurd, made-up numbers from lying, self-serving, dumb :censored:?

    Even the print runs from the site in your image are suspect for the issues with newsstand distribution, because they're probably based on the available Direct distribution (estimated) numbers, which obviously do not include Newsstands.

    Do I know how many Newsstands were printed and distributed? Do I know how many Newsstands are still out there or where they are? No, but unlike you, I understand that I don't know that and don't believe ridiculous nonsense.

    the numbers for the Rai's 3 and 4 and harbinger 1 are right at what I remember them to be back in 1992 when they were first released....now exact numbers are ALWAYS tough but these numbers are most certainly within the BALLPARK actual number i would say...if you have a "better picture" of the reality to the numbers please share...

  9. On 7/15/2022 at 11:42 PM, MAR1979 said:

    50 copies ?  In the mid 1990's that would been negative revenue.  Not sure what the minimum amount would have been then but no way only 50 were printed and distributed.

    @MAR1979 I think the newsstands were just printed to test or pilot the "non-comic store" market and therefore not expected to generate much revenue and they also experimented with different paper stock for SOME of the newsstands...at least this is what I have read

  10. I haven't found any graded ones of the four main valiant titles mentioned above in over a year on ebay. I have found some raw copies but are tough to find in nice condition...As a reference Spawn #1 newsstands are thought to exist in a ratio of 1:100...to make things more challenging to collect newsstands is that they are often in less condition than their direct sales counterparts....I have seen rarity newsstand valiant ratios of 1:300 to their direct sales and some of the late Bloodshot books were printed at around 10,000 copies thus presumably  less than 50 newsstands of some of these late bloodshot issues exist which seems awfully low...try finding some and you will see what im talking about....wanted to see what other fellow valiant fans have encountered...I have almost all valiant books ever produced preunity and post unity in mutiple copies...(they have great stories and great art making for some high collecting quality comic books)...i didn't even know valiant had newsstand until about 6 months ago so I know these things are pretty tough to come by...

  11. On 5/26/2022 at 12:05 PM, skybolt said:

    Agreed. I think what bothers me the most is getting dinged for production type defects. If I sent in a book with a small spine stress line expecting a 9.6/9.8, and it comes back a 9.4, I can live with that. On the other hand, I don't think it's fair to get a 9.0 grade on a book like Batman #497 or Amazing Spider-Man #400 where the die cut cover creates an indentation within the inner cover. Even if you get this pressed out, it'll still revert back to its original form once the die cut cover presses up against the book again. 


    On 5/26/2022 at 10:23 AM, captainzombie said:

    Totally agree with you on this. They can't for a period of 6 months to 1 year grade a bit on the loose side, and then decide well it is time to grade very harsh for another 6 months to 1 year and then change course again. Some of this has to be due to these new graders taking CGC guidelines to the extreme. I feel like that comes off as market manipulation.

    I can send a book in with 1 flaw, which technically should be at a 9.8 since you rarely see a 9.9 or 10.0. If they are deducting by a .1 or .5 basis for each issue with 1 flaw you should be around 9.8, yet books like that either get a 9.6, 9.4, 9.2 or even less than the 9.0 depending on who is doing the grading.

    Then it irritates me with the books from the 80's and 90's, it has turned into a guess game on your grades with these books and expect to probably get the worst grade possible.

    Skybolt and Captainzombie very well ACCURATE thought processes...you guys understand:goodvsevil:...A+++

  12. On 5/25/2022 at 11:42 AM, skybolt said:

    The last 10 minutes of this video is exactly how many of us feel these days.


    As of about 2 months ago i have noticed grades on moderns are 0.2 (especially if it is in 9.8 zone) to 0.6 lower than in past 2 years...undergrading can hurt the industry just as much as overgrading...submitters will be much more hesitant to send in now in my opinion...once this happens the pendulum will likely swing back to a more normal accepted standard level...the power of free markets is strong...