Qalyar

Later printings of (most) modules don't have the stigma of reprint comics, though. I've seen unwrapped T1-4s in nice condition go for over $100, and I'm willing to guess the SW multiplier on that book is probably like 5x or more. I looked, but I can't find any shrinkwrapped T1-4s currently for sale at any of the usual suspects. As for module info, nothing is a better source of information than The Acaeum.

So, there's only the one printing of The Last Supplement (which is also issue #98 of The Realist, a mostly-not-comic underground tabloid magazine). But there are two versions of that one printing, one for normal sales, and one for subscribers. Check the box at the top-left on the back cover (not my copies, and ignore the difference in apparently background color between the two pics): Normal sales: Subscription copies are, anecdotally, much rarer:

And just because I can, what you have here are: CM4, CM6, CM7, DL4, DL6, DL10, I8, M2, WG8, WGR3, WGR5, X6: First (and only) printings. Q1: Third or fourth printing. If there is an ISBN on the back cover, bottom left, then it's 3rd. Else, 4th. S1-4: On the back cover, if the TSR address is on Rathmore Road, it's a first printing. If it's 120 Church End, second printing. T1-4: Hoo boy. This is one of the first five printings; after that, they changed to the gold tablet TSR logo. On the back, look for the bar code. If there's an ISBN and a Product Number immediately above it, then it is either a first or second printing; they are indistinguishable on sealed copies. If the PN is inside the bar code, and there is NO ISBN, then it's either a third or fourth printing; they are indistinguishable on sealed copies. If it has no PN, but an ISBN above the bar code, it's a fifth printing. As far as value goes, none of these are great rarities, although most modules of this era in original shrinkwrap sell quite well. CM7 goes a bit higher than most of these. Your most important modules, value-wise, are WGR5 Iuz the Evil and both superadventuers (S1-4 Realms of Horror and T1-4 Temple of Elemental Evil). In particular, T1-4 is a very popular book. Assuming that it appears sound inside the shrinkwrap, that's conceivably a several hundred dollar module, especially if it's a 1st/2nd printing copy.

If they actually were specializing a branch in module grading, maybe? But currently at least, they're just grading these via their magazine grading program. And the standard for comic and magazine collecting has long been that sealed product is not inherently desirable. In part, unlike video game boxes, that's because most of the polybagging options for comics risk damage to their contents. The shrinkwrapped Power Records stuff is like the banner for that! So, on one hand, comic/magazine graders don't want sealed product because it prevents proper evaluation of condition. Also, mechanically speaking, it's probably not compatible with the comic/magazine encapsulation process. The long-term question is going to be whether the module collectors would prefer SW vs. encapsulated (and thus, graded by an authority). So far, that's been SW, and a few graded modules won't move that needle. But who knows what the future holds?

Unlike video game grading authorities, CGC does not encapsulate sealed products.

@CGC Mike I'd like to urge you to continue community engagement on this topic. Obviously, you're going to get some curt and outright rude replies. Unfortunately, that... sort of comes with the course of the internet. But honestly, one of the things that helped the QC situation become such a contentious issue in the community -- other than, well, slabs with problems that missed QC, of course -- was the perception that the company wasn't engaged on the issue. That they weren't correcting problems, or really interested in the issue at all. Now, I'm sure that was never actually true. And I realize, being involved in process improvement work myself, that no sane company is going to diverge all their internal process details. I believe that we got to where we got because CGC felt the whole problem was an internal matter, and maybe also because they underestimated the reach and diversity of the problems involved. But having a representative of the company provide (and take) feedback on the issue means we, as customers, know that we're not the only ones invested in the problem. Yeah, we never were, but perception is sometimes reality. I, at least, don't expect detailed insights into how things are changing; that's your business, not mine. But just knowing, "hey, we're getting new equipment to help with the scratches issue" means we know that 1) both sides agree there was a scratches issues, and 2) there's action being taken to fix it. And that counts for a lot. Even if some people are gonna be about it. EDIT: And it should be stated outright. Thank you, Mike, for your involvement with us on these boards, both on this topic and elsewhere.

No. In fact, some of the rarest module variations that had vaguely-normal public releases are the "hanger modules", which have a cardboard hangtab header attached (usually glued, but I think one version is stapled) to the top of the outside of the shrinkwrap. Obviously, those shouldn't be unsealed or slabbed because it is only the header that distinguishes them from the normal version. They're pretty much the module equivalent of Whitmans or DC Universe printings, though. Almost literally so, since they were sold (mostly) at Toys R Us. They're, um, rather strenuously rare. Otherwise, AFAIK, shrinkwrapping is indistinguishable across the product line. I wouldn't break wrap to get modules slabbed because, at least right now, the "SW" grade is a bigger cachet in the module collecting community than encapsulation. It'll be interesting to see if that holds true 5 or 10 years down the line.

That does seem a little ambitious...

Appreciated. This is one of the most important things CGC can do to recover from this period of QA issues. Obviously, fixing the problems going forward is paramount, but controlling the damage done by bad labels is essential too.

Well, it's bold or reckless if you actually pay for it, which Donahoe almost certainly didn't. After all, that's how his previous business "worked". He ordered comics from DC, sold them, pocketed the cash, then just never got around to paying DC for the books. And when people caught on, folded the business and slinked off into the night. With IPS, we know he tried to stiff the Pinis entirely (and steal their art); odds are good he didn't pay other people involved in production, either. After all, by Richard's account, that 10k run sold out in a few months, but IPS folded immediately without trying to publish anything further. It was basically just a scam operation that accidentally produced one of the most influential key indie books of all time.

Steve Mannion has done art work for a bunch of publishers, including a little bit with both DC and Marvel. He's probably best known for Fearless Dawn, which has been published in a couple different places. He's got something of a following in the current world of creator-owned indies. Heck, there's even a Fearless Dawn Meets Hellboy crossover book co-written by Mannion and Mignola and put out by Albatross Funnybooks. Some of his books are also sort of a pain to identify. Atom Bomb Comics is his self-publication imprint (as opposed to the bulk of the Fearless Dawn stuff that went through Asylum, or random books at other publishers). I believe he uses POD publisher IndyPlanet for all of those. However, he does appear to play use of a POD printer straight as far as production quantities go. There's an initial fixed-volume print run, and then open-ended POD reprint availability. The reprints, therefore, will probably always be valueless. The first runs are ... well, I actually have literally zero idea what the market interest is in his work, to be honest. As for The Bomb #1-4, if you have a cover price of $2.95 or $2.99 (it varies by issue), that's a first-run. If the cover price is $4.99 or $5.00, that's the open-ended POD reprint. I don't think the Swimsuit book was even offered up for reprint availability. I can't see cover prices in your photo, but I assume these aren't reprints. That sketchbook is another thing entirely. So, Mannion puts out these sketchbooks periodically. Asylum Press put out his sketchbooks in 2012, 2013, and 2014. I don't know for certain whether the one you have was actually put out in 2007, or if that's just the date on the cover art, but it's definitely rarer that the 2012-2014 books. Again, no established sales that I can find (I know there's a copy in France that's been offered for sale for about $40), but if you run across big fans of Mannion, this is definitely one of his more elusive pieces.

NGC is not immune to the same sorts of errors that CGC produces. Couple quick examples: https://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=379625 https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/414797-mechanical-error-follow-up-questions/ https://dniewcollectors.blogspot.com/2014/06/error-in-encapsulation.html There do seem to be fewer of these than CGC QC failures. Some of that may simply be volume related. Some may just be due to the difference in workflow between solid, metal coins and floppy, bendable, creasable comics. It's difficult to tell. @CGC Mike What I think it most important about the NGC process vs the CGC process, and why I tagged Mike here, is that NGC will amend the certification record if they become aware of a coin with a mechanical error on the label or other issues that would make the label not reflect the reality of the encapsulated coin. CGC, so far, well... doesn't, at least not as a matter of course (I know there have been a handful of cases whose certification was deleted outright). Admittedly, NGC probably had to be more proactive about that sort of thing because there actually have been attempts to counterfeit NGC holders, while I'm not aware of any credible efforts to create fraudulent CGC slabs. CGC desperately needs to implement this policy immediately. The problem is obvious; although a mechanical error label that would result in undervaluing the book will typically be sent back by the submitter under a mechanical error label, there is no motivation for an unscrupulous submitter to remit books whose label errors would overvalue the book (such as the Ultimate Fallout 4 reprints slabbed as genuine copies of UF4, any of the custom graphic labels that fail to reflect restoration, and so forth). That guarantees that the most significant labeling mistakes, with the greatest potential to harm third parties, are the least likely to be returned for correction. CGC cannot force anyone to return those items to have them corrected, but they can notate the certification record to indicate the actual status of the book. Collectors will need to become accustomed to checking certification status before purchasing slabbed books, but frankly, we should all be doing that anyway.

The foreign modules, so far, haven't ever really done well in terms of market value. But the French T1-4 is a pretty cool one. T1-4 is always popular, and there are very few foreign supermodules.

The filler Aircel books are always really common, but the more interesting ones are elusive. The Carmilla series is generally a nice find, especially what looks to be a fairly high-grade copy of #1 with the paper wrapper intact. Also, fun fact about that Penthouse Men's Adventure Comix #1. That series actually runs 7 issues. However, #2-7 are exclusively magazine sized. The first issue exists in both formats; evidently, the comic-sized book didn't sell as well so they dropped the dual format experiment immediately after. I'd consider both versions "infrequently encountered", but some of that is likely just the limited visibility of adult-targeted books on the secondary market.

Better consistency with grader's notes would be a good mid-term goal for the company, I think, once the quality control problems are remediated. The counterargument has always been that doing so will further delay TATs. But I know that there are some backend software and process improvements in the pipeline. If those aren't yet set in stone, they provide a very good opportunity to revising the grader's notes process as well. The idea for grader's notes should not be an attempt to provide an exact diagnosis of the problems with a book, only to indicate their nature in broad terms. If I were building the interface for this, I would make the most common issues available in a "build your own note" selection system. While evaluating the book, the grader would have an interface where they could select: Type of defect, chosen from: abrasion, bend, crease, tear, stain Severity of defect, chosen from: minor, moderate, severe Location of defect, chosen from: front cover, back cover Area of defect, chosen from a list. I think the most useful list -- offering specificity without flooding the list with options -- would be sextants (UL, UR, CL, CR, LL, LR), plus a seventh option for "whole book". Obviously, that doesn't cover everything (spine splits, interior defects, and so forth), so the interface also includes a box that can be checked to instead allow the grader to enter a freeform note, as they do now. With minimal training and repetition, this should allow notes to be created and entered fairly quickly. Now, if CGC does actually still have two graders review each book -- and I'm not going to speculate there -- it is possible that you would not make these "raw" notes customer-facing unless they match to some extent. You'd need to iterate to determine the details of the process that works best for the company. But at the very least, if you do have multiple graders entering notes on the same books, even if we don't see them, that should be queryable data, which you can use to audit grader performance. If Grader Bethany consistently identifies books as having minor creases while Grader Joshua categorizes those same books as moderate creases, then you have a disconnect regarding your grading standard (one way or the other) and can provide additional training. Regardless, the bottom line is that CGC should standardize grader's notes formatting, to the extent feasible, both to provide a better customer experience AND to provide actionable intelligence about how the process is performing. The topic this thread is about is sort of an aside at this point, but I really struggle to see anything in that picture that would constitute a tideline, or water damage of any sort. A better grader's note system might very well have prevented this problem.

Quite a few of the D&D modules have a long history of distinguishable reprints. Although first printings are generally the most-wanted, there are some notable exceptions (actually, a lot like comics in that regard). Off the top of my head, the red-cover X1 is pretty tough to find, and I believe that's a fourth printing. Unlike (mainstream, but not indie or small-press) comics, most of the D&D modules don't conveniently list a printing number in an indicia, so if CGC is going to be serious about this, being able to identify the printing and label the books correctly is actually important. In the case of S1, the fourth, fifth, and sixth printings all use the green cover. Fourth prints have an extra line of trademark text near the bottom of the cover and have the company address in a different font. Fifth/sixth printings are distinguished exclusively from the back cover; fifth prints do not have a product number at the BC LR; sixth printings do. I checked the back cover image on the ebay auction; CGC got this one correct. But that's the sort of thing that I worry will lead to problems. (Most) D&D modules consist of a cardboard wraparound cover (with interior map) and stapled interior pages. However, the cover is not stapled -- or attached in any other way -- to the interior. So there's nothing to prevent marrying covers. That's... normally not going to be a problem, because it isn't like there's a supply of high grade covers without interiors. But sometimes it will be. For example, A1 Slave Pits of the Undercity first printings have defective illustrations on several interior pages. They were corrected for a second printing, but no changes were made to the cover (so there's no way to distinguish between them on shrink-wrapped copies). A third printing changed both cover and contents in several ways. Unless I'm overlooking something, it would very likely be possible to marry a first printing interior to a (presumably higher grade) second printing cover without risking detection.

So, gods in Marvel's universe have always been in sort of a weird place. In a lot of ways, it's more a profession than a power level. In the case of Asgardians, gods are a literal race of people, although it's clear that not all Marvel gods work quite that way. In any case, while we know that life on Gorr's homeworld sucked mightily, we don't really know much about his people. That said, since they first provided the background for this character, I've always had a headcanon for him. His people believed that there were gods, and that faith in them was important, even though they never seemed to intervene. Gorr ultimately lost faith in those absent powers entirely, then learned that gods are real and gods can die. Add one evil sword, and we're off to the races. My take on it? Gorr's people were right. But the divine power they were waiting for... was Gorr. But as he succumbed to grief and nihilism, he became part of the problem, never realizing that he himself had the strength to lift his people up. In fact, in my take on the character, that's precisely why the people close to him died horribly, sometimes in really unlikely circumstances. The Sand Tiger attack? The earthquake that killed Arra? All happened right as Gorr was questioning the power of his people's gods to act on their behalf. Thus actually questioning his own ability to act on their behalf, and so bringing down the dooms he refused to believe could be forestalled. And, yes, I know that probably isn't flawlessly compatible with his backstory in Thor: God of Thunder, but we're hearing that in flashback from Gorr's perspective anyway. So if the idea is that he has never realized that he could have been his people's god and savior, we wouldn't see any of that from his point of view. I doubt Marvel will ever go that way with Gorr, especially after King Thor. But they should. It's a better story than Gorr just being really swole, or something.

In general, specifically-known print runs are the exception, not the norm. There's generally little benefit to publishers or creators from advertising exact numbers except when they have to (or when they're making it a selling point), and even then, the realities of what actually got printed don't always match what's discussed. However, I did some digging. There was a huge interview with the Pinis in Comic Book Creator #23 (Summer 2020) that I wasn't previous aware of. Per Richard (on page 62) the FQ print run was indeed 10,000 copies. With that in mind, it seems possible that Gearino was right and Meyerson wrong about the print run for ElfQuest #2. YMMV there. Anyway, on the topic of FQ, it's sort of a miracle that ElfQuest happened at all. FQ's publisher, IPS, wasn't... a real publisher. It was run by Tim Donahoe, who had already launched -- and failed with -- a comic distribution company (Donahoe Brothers, out of Ann Arbor, also known as Comic Center Enterprises and Donahoe Brudders). That business lasted a bit more than a year; Donahoe had been reselling merchandise without paying the publishers for it, a scheme so brazen than it apparently attracted the personal attention and ire of Carmine Infantino himself. It's not clear that the Pinis were aware of Donahoe's history threeish years later when he offered to publish ElfQuest in FQ. After releasing that one single issue, printed nearly as cheaply as possible, IPS folded. Donahoe refused to pay the Pinis, and refused to return 60 pages of unpublished ElfQuest artwork to the Pinis. Richard made the trip from Boston to Lansing to successfully demand return of the art in person, but Donahoe never paid them directly. They did get their money later on -- after a fashion -- but only because Bud Plant and Phil Seuling wound up with money that was supposed to go to Donahoe from a separate project, but they agreed to take the Pinis' share out of it upfront to make them whole!

The only thing currently affecting my comic buying habits is an ability to find the things I want to buy.

I don't stack and mistreat books this way when they're undercopies of valueless drek, much less the books in this pile.

Yeah, I wouldn't slab any printing of S1 in any grade. It's well-known, certainly, but neither rare nor particularly valuable. If, at some point, slabbed modules become more widely traded, then maybe high grade copies of the monochrome printings. Maybe. That's not to say there aren't D&D products that are solid contenders for slabbing, though. Off the top of my head and not exactly in an order: B3 Palace of the Silver Princess. Recalled orange/tan printing only. ST1 Up the Garden Path. I always wanted one of these personally, but their value shot up way past what I'm ever going to be willing to pay. Ghost Tower of Inverness. 1979 printing only, but any of the UL corner variants. Jade Hare, especially with cover, but honestly the coverless ones, too... if you could be assured that CGC wouldn't slap them with an NG label for being coverless. For the curious, the generic belief is that all distributed copies were coverless and that the small handful of copies with covers (estimates are fewer than 10) were handed out internally at TSR. Lost Tamoachan: The Hidden Shrine of Lubaatum. Any of the UL corner variants, but not the reprints under the "Hidden Shrine" name. Any of the H series modules in high grade, although for H1 Bloodstone Pass specifically, I think collectors would prefer shrinkwrapped copies that include the extra cutouts and booklets to even high grade slabs of the module itself. Maybe. Market's still young here. Regardless, if I had a loose H1 that I thought was, say, an 8.5+ book, I'd think about encapsulation. Any of the R series modules (To the Aid of Falx, Investigation of Hydell, Egg of the Phoenix, Doc's Island) in collectable condition. I assume that their pre-print versions (from GenCon East 1981 and GenCon 14) would not be eligible for authentication, nor would any of R5 or later (except for their Polyhedron reprints, which aren't worth slabbing). Any of the RPGA series modules that were actually full-sized releases (Rahasia, Black Opal Eye, Forgotten King, Elixir of Life), but not the revamped B7 Rahasia, RPGA5-8 from Polyhedron, or the late-90s era RPGA stuff that wasn't actually numbered "RPGA#. If CGC would authenticate them -- and their cover stock is weird enough that CGC might -- the original Daystar West edition of Rahasia (either printing!) would absolutely be slab-worthy also (likewise Daystar's West Pharaoh). Chainmail, either Guidon Games edition (and either printing of 2nd edition), but probably not TSR copies. Dragon magazine, #1 to 5ish, in high grade especially. Those aren't as rare or valuable as the modules I've listed (well, #1 goes for silly prices now...), but they're as much, or more, worth slabbing than Nintendo Power and the like. For the record, #4 is the rarest issue as confirmed by former employees, although it's nowhere near as valuable as #1s because #1. I'm fairly sure that some of the other rarities, like Domesday Book (any issue!), Dwarven Glory, Lost Caverns of Tsojconth, the 1st printing of Palace of the Vampire Queen, or the April 1970 issue of Panzerfaust would not be eligible for authentication and slabbing for various reasons including ease of counterfeiting or lack of any actual binding whatsoever.

Indeed, because there are some modules that are a real bag of cats as far as identifying the correct print state. To say nothing of wondering how they would break out, say, the various versions of first-printing copies of C2 (numbered, tournament DM, TSR Staff copies, and Allen Hammack's designer copies). Or what they'd do with Jade Hare, where 99% of copies were shipped coverless! I assume that CGC would decline to authenticate some things, like the R-series pre-pub copies or Quest for Fazzleood. But of course, the real concern is how they'd ensure that there aren't swapped out pages or other shenanigans. As for the ebay listing linked here, um, good luck getting $500 for that. Condition entirely notwithstanding, the 5th printing isn't a particularly rare or desirable version of S1. The choice picks are the monochrome prints (not counting the anniversary reprint they screwed up and didn't label as an anniversary reprint...), especially the actual first printing (with no prices on the back cover product list). But the trick with S1 1st-3rd prints is that they were actually two separate booklets for module text and illustrations, and I have absolutely no clue how CGC would handle that.

My opinion has always been "because there is something that makes the book different". There are lots of things publishers and printers do that make some books different from others. Variant covers, newsstand editions, alternative-distribution editions (like Whitmans or DC Universe books), first-party foreign market printings (CPVs / UK / AUS), or miscellaneous stuff like MJ inserts. Sometimes the differences are really minor. There's at least one book ... which one is escaping me at the moment ... that exists with two different back-cover advertisements on otherwise identical books. Spawn has a run of issues where they had two different printers producing newsstand copies; the resulting books both have a UPC but different UPC numbers. And so forth. Here's the thing. Maybe you don't care about newsstand editions, but you might still have an opinion about variant covers, or you want to avoid reprints. CGC usually labels books with different covers individually (although there are exceptions there, too), and at least tries to ensure that all subsequent printings are clearly identified. And that's all fine. People should collect whatever and however they want. But that's exactly why I think CGC should break out distinguishable books whenever possible. You don't want to chase the direct market / newsstand divide, but having them labeled separately doesn't change anything for you. But if I do want to dig deep into all the variations -- not just the "variants" in the cover sense -- CGC doesn't really do a great job of supporting me there. Sure, I can get newsstand copies slabbed just like direct editions, but they aren't listed as different books for census purposes (and, yes, I know all about the problems inherent in the census). And they aren't distinct books for fun stuff like the Registry, if you're into that. I know, this isn't a new fight, and it doesn't seem like one that's likely to change soon. Although if CGC ever clears the backlog and improves their TAT, they could probably make a big pile of money offering to break out and relabel NS books. Offer it as a service that's cheaper than normal grading but not free, and I bet they'd get to print (more) money. I know I have books that would go in... I absolutely have books on my collection shelves where I own both DM and NS copies in CGC slabs; it's just sort of a shame that they don't "count" as anything different.

Elfquest 2 was 10,000* copies, but I don't believe there's ever been an acknowledgement of how many FQ 1 were produced. I'd assume quite a bit less. Maybe 5k? 2500? I feel like they can't be that rare, because the paper quality is pretty much generic newsprint with a cover that's only slightly better, but there are nearly 400 CGC slabbed copies; if the print run was something like 500 or 1000, I would not have expected 400 survivors. * To be fair, there is a book by Dan Gearino that reports this as 20k instead of 10k, but I'm inclined to believe the smaller number, which -- among other places -- was reported by Charlie Meyerson in "The Origins of Independent Comics", a historical research series that appeared alongside the comics content in First Comics books in 1983-84; Meyerson did his level best to do his homework and there's every indication that he got that figure from the Pinis.

I really, really wish that Overstreet would refocus on being a comprehensive reference guide. They have the resources and available expertise to do it right, and that's the sort of the material that is actually beneficial to have in print (or e-print) format. As opposed to pricing information, where the speed of commerce is always going to favor data spigots like GPA. And yeah, I know that weird stuff and rare stuff (whether that's GA books, small press items, or promotional oddities) aren't going to have reliable GPA data; that doesn't make OPG's prices for them any less of a melange of guesswork and garbage. Sadly, and despite the efforts of people far more influential than I am, Overstreet has strenuously resisted answering that particular call.