rodan57

Staples are dull but clean without any pitting; however, I didn't notice the crease until I scanned the book for my records. The colours are great on this book and the whites looked newsstand fresh but to go from being so pleased with a purchase to "What was I thinking?" in about 5 seconds was one of those great eye-openers that contribute one's education as a comic book collector. These days I try hard not to miss a trick no matter how good a book looks. I never neglect to count pages, tilt the book for dimples and -- though you can look foolish doing it -- I smell the book to check for mildew.

I thought I had a pretty nice copy of this book until a couple of days after I bought it. Can you spot the huge flaw that my eyes missed totally?

Love that book. Underrated 1st "feature spot" Dr. Strange cover Also a Kirby/Stone version of the Doctor.

That’s probably a good point – I had no precise idea on the value of the 15 or so listed, so I couldn’t tell, but this surely will help Chip to fine-tune the offer and to avoid the "Mystery Box". Very good point. There's the law and then there's the spirit of the law.

I think your book presents well. If you had told me it was a 9.0, I wouldn't have blinked. I crack out all my slabs and collect images of graded books to hone my grading skills. When I apply the results of this, my assessments are often conflicted due to a perceived variance in CGCs grading.* Given how Westerns were not kept or collected the way that superhero titles were and higher grades are significantly fewer in number, your Rawhide Kid was well bought -- and, I am sure, a credit to the collection. _______________ *I was going to post some examples of the range of my cracked 8.0s but I don't think anyone would seek to debunk my conclusion and, frankly, as a Western fan, I don't want to derail this thread.

Out of curiosity and hoping not to pry, what is the grade on this one? -- the corners look very nice.

I share your pain.

That JIM looks like a nice book.

And it is a well Loved copy which a lot of my books are. And a Kirby/Ditko cover.

Good thoughts. Just to fine tune and support your zeitgeist argument ... FF #81 hit the newsstands in September of 1968 and was probably written sometime in July -- a mere three months after MLK's assassination.

I know this is sacrilegious but I've always been underwhelmed by Ditko covers. They always lacked an 'oomph' of some sort. He was a great storyteller though. I am a very big fan of Ditko the artist and storyteller. He should be studied by all comic book artists. But I too have felt that covers were not his strong point. Great anatomy and perspective but he didn't seem to have much interest in rendering backgrounds. I only have a beat up childhood copy but this issue might a notable exception to his indifference to background. p.s. It might have been interesting if Ditko had done a Doctor Strange cover to #110.

I have a lot of Ace sic-fi and here you go and post six out of seven right off the bat that I don't have.

Sorry to hear of the disappointment with the FF 48. The book looks good without seeing the spine. There wouldn't be any downgrading for the miswrap. It's a bit of a gamble in the 6.0 to 7.0 range as I have seen a number of questionable 7.0s and harsh 6.0s. However it might be that with such an important book that rose coloured glasses may have missed some interior tearing, staining, toning or rust and/or looseness at a staple. Of course, CGC may simply have been off on their opinion on grading day. Still a mighty fine issue to own. Here's one I thought was a beautiful 8.0 when I bought it -- good edges, flat, shinny, really good whites and with just a bit of fuzziness along the spine. I must have owned it for at least a couple of months before seeing the obvious defect.

I'm bumping this exchange as others are getting restless and looking for a current update on their books. I can quite understand how you would want him to walk the walk and not talk the talk. There's something disturbing about nominating oneself to the PL. I can't quite put my finger on it's but it like a cross between pity me and punish me.

Have a Merry Christmas!

I think this is the key thing. If somebody buys something from me, I'd like him to buy again. That's not likely if I hassle him about a return. If somebody gets a book and decides that a crease on the cover looks worse in hand than in my scan, or a stain seems more prominent, then I would rather them send it back--on my dime--than stew about it and write me off as a seller. One of the reasons I brought the issue up was what I thought was a common sense argument --- that defects can look different when a book is held up close and that when selling long distance one should be sensitive to scans and photos not being full communicators of information. Our own grading forum makes that a core tenet of its approach to grading. I know that when I grade a raw book in my collection, I look at the book and a scan of the book to be sure I am not missing anything. It's actually quite common that the scan either reveals or hide flaws. When you return a CGC book for this reason who, in your opinion, should pay the shipping cost? The buyer both ways. There is no misrepresentation involved.

Great Doctor Strange story in that issue! Fabulous quality copy.

I think this is the key thing. If somebody buys something from me, I'd like him to buy again. That's not likely if I hassle him about a return. If somebody gets a book and decides that a crease on the cover looks worse in hand than in my scan, or a stain seems more prominent, then I would rather them send it back--on my dime--than stew about it and write me off as a seller. One of the reasons I brought the issue up was what I thought was a common sense argument --- that defects can look different when a book is held up close and that when selling long distance one should be sensitive to scans and photos not being full communicators of information. Our own grading forum makes that a core tenet of its approach to grading. I know that when I grade a raw book in my collection, I look at the book and a scan of the book to be sure I am not missing anything. It's actually quite common that the scan either reveals or hide flaws.

That's in beautiful shape.

So the the argument could reasonably be made that when you buy a CGC graded comic you're buying into the concept that the entity who graded the book isn't responsible for the grade. Doesn't this support my position?

Just a bug bear that I come across too often. Why no returns on slabbed books? " ... because of third party grading" is not a reason. It's pretty much like saying you can't return a graded book because it is a graded book. If I look at a slab at a convention and I don't think its a good example of the grade or, on closer look, has a defect that I don't want on a book in my collection, I put it back in the bin. Why I am not granted the same collector's courtesy when buying long distance? The "no return on CGC books" strikes me as a way to avoid returns and to avoid standing behind what you are selling (or in the worst case scenario, moving a "gift grade"). We all understand the individual nature of collecting and unless the Pope joins the CGC grading team, they're not infallible.

Just so that you are aware, all slabs will separate to various extents along the sides. The outer slab is only sealed at the corner pins. A new slab would act in the same manner.

Yep.