Qalyar

Star Fantasy was a short-run Italian anthology book that reprinted various (often licensed) fantasy properties, translated into Italian. In particular, #5 and #6 reprint EverQuest: The Ruins of Kunark in serialized form, along with other material (including one of Mark Smylie's Artesia books, although I haven't taken the time to figure out which one...). Here is #5, featuring an adaptation of the original book's cover art (itself a swipe of the Ruins of Kunark game box art). No spine ticks, and generally a sound book but with quite a bit of edge and corner wear. In part, I'm curious how much of this might be able to press out, although obviously things like the FC LR corner obviously can't be helped. With a few exceptions, these foreign republications are a beast to find in high grades Front corners: Back corners:

Here was my writeup of the story behind the distribution of this comic. Perhaps around 500 copies distributed, but under circumstances that effectively guaranteed a uniquely terrible survival rate for copies. I know that there are at least a couple others out there, but I've never actually seen another in person... or for sale.

It's actually a lot like the All promotional in that respect, except that CGC's never seen a copy of Teeny Titans. Oh, and you can find pictures of the cover online without the sticker (but they're taken from the digital edition), so there's room for people to get confused. But you're probably right in that the top of the spine renders any question about the sticker status sadly moot.

I'm very excited about this. I think this will potentially help CGC in a lot of ways, with the Registry just one of them. Here's looking forward to more news later this year!

Admittedly correct, but if there's a whole-book bend -- I was sure there was when I got it, but it sure seems to lay flatter now, so maybe replacing the backing board and storing it properly since then has helped -- then a tacking iron wouldn't be suitable to correct it. And of course, no pressing technique can fix those spine corners.

This wasn't great cinema, but I thought it was pretty fun. It's clearly intended as a love letter to close out the franchise, and I do think it largely succeeded at that. Absolutely the most important thing the film did right, in my opinion, is that it is not a kaiju monster movie. Yes, there are dinosaurs running amok. Yes, people run from dinosaurs and get eaten by dinosaurs and I trust that none of that can remotely be considered a spoiler. But several of the previous JP franchise films -- especially the other two Jurassic World movies -- have been thematically very different from the original Jurassic Park, with a single "super" dinosaur that is effectively the film's villain, and which the human protoganists must defeat to survive and ensure their victory. Indominus (Jurassic World), Indoraptor (Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom), arguably the Spinosaurus from Jurassic Park III. This movie doesn't really do that. I'm willing to put up with some plot contrivances, hokey dialogue, and goofy nostalgia nods for that alone.

Popular hobby, large pool of interested collectors, and -- especially for the really early stuff -- comparatively tiny print runs. Enough information is known about the first few sets to establish the number of copies of each card printed. So, you're looking at 3,000 copies of each Beta rare ever, and 16,000 copies of Unlimited rare ever (and even less for the Alpha stuff, although I didn't own Alpha prints of any of the big-ticket cards). And of course, survival rates are nowhere near 100%. Plus, for a lot of those first sets, they later implemented a dumb policy that says that anything they hadn't already reprinted at an arbitrary cutoff date would never be reprinted, so there's a strong element of forced rarity in that regard. Even copies way outside what you're consider "collectible" condition are still big money, in part because there are formats (such as Commander) which are very popular to actually play and where at least some of these cards are still absolutely legitimate parts of decks (original dual lands, I'm looking at you). That doesn't mean the prices aren't still crazy. But the prices for SA comic keys are also crazy. Everything is crazy!

Clear, relatively unobtrusive store stamps and date stamps do not affect the grade of books (from the appropriate time period) except well into the 9.x range, and sometimes not even then. The back cover stains, on the other hand.... The FC UL also looks a little soft, and there's some hint of wear on the spine there. It's sometimes tough to evaluate stains in photos because lighting makes things look funny, but I'm going to guess 7.0 here because CGC has really dinged stains hard lately. On the other hand, they're small and there's no tidelines, so a good day with a nice grader might get that one or two grades higher. It's certainly not a shoe-in for an 8.0, though. Which is a shame, because it really does present beautifully from the front.

I can't imagine that's bug chew with the cover wrap still looking like that! So, I'm going to guess that this is actually a manufacturing defect. But it's certainly not a common or widely-accepted manufacturing defect. This is such a unique situation, it's tough to guess what CGC will do. Do they count it as a single defect, or many? The size of defects is a factor in CGC's grading scale; do they consider this small (the size of the missing corners) or much larger (the size of the corner times the number of pages affected)? Do they give a softer penalty because they sometimes go easy on interior defects? Do they think this is manufacturing-related and give you a break on the grade despite not being a "common" problem? At the bottom of the scale, I could imagine them saying, look, a substantial percentage of the pages have a piece missing and, oh yeah, there's a spine tick. 6.5/7.0. At the top of the scale, I could imagine them deeming this one defect, then giving you a break because it doesn't appear to be post-consumer wear and it doesn't affect the exterior appearance and, hey, why not slap a 9.0/9.2 on this sucker? I think my guess would be to split the difference and say I think you're looking at an 8.5 book here, but honestly, I think an extreme grade in one direction or another is as likely as one in the middle here.

I don't really regret any of the comics I've sold, because the things that make me happiest aren't for sale. That said, I think I've owned four IH181 raws in, oh, let's say 7.5 - 9.2 for the spread. I made money on the sale of every one of them, but the total is almost certainly less than just the 9.2 would go for now. Not really a regret though. If I have any regrets regarding selling collectibles, it's my original Magic: the Gathering collection. Jumped in on that hobby with some friends pretty shortly after it started, but sold off right around 2000. I want to say I got around $4000 for everything at the time. Even with extremely conservative estimates on condition, that collection would be well north of a quarter-million dollars today. Oops.

In principle, they notate newsstand printings if something other than the bar code box is different between the NS and DM printings. In principle. There have been NS books that received separate entries because of: differing page counts, differing paper quality (and/or cover paper stock), cover price, and so on. But I'm fairly sure that there are also several books with distinguishable features (especially different advertisements) where they have not deemed the differences sufficiently significant. If you're trying to get an NS notation on a book where they aren't already breaking them out, you probably want to make your case in Ask CGC, explaining the distinguishing feature (and then 50/50 whether they allow the breakout anyway).

I've mentioned this book a couple times on the forums, and I'd like opinions as to its grade. The book presents nicely, especially from the front, but there are a couple of flaws that I know would be big hits. There may also be a slight full-book bend, although that's unlikely to affect the final grade for reasons that will be very obvious. I wish this book was in a little better condition, but the extreme rarity of this piece means that any copy is a good copy. Regardless, this book is not a candidate for pressing because of the semi-foil sticker applied to the front cover. So far as I am aware, all physical copies of this book have that sticker attached, which means this isn't likely pressable by a responsible presser (and won't get within 10 feet of an irresponsible presser). I also have no idea how CGC would evaluate the sticker from a grading perspective -- grade hit, green label, notation, random other options?? -- and that's a big part of why I'm here at PGM with it! So, call 'em like you see 'em! Front cover corners: Back cover corners. Uh oh. Bend / color rub at back cover top staple: And finally, oblique shots of the damage to the spine at both top and bottom of the back cover:

I don't think this would be considered restoration in terms of getting a purple label. On the other hand, I do think there's a chance it would be returned to you without grading or encapsulation if the graders felt that the translucent paper "coating" would prevent them from adequately evaluating the actual cover. Assuming this got graded, 0.5 Universal. Some notation, probably about tape on cover, possibly something uniquely cheeky about the translucent paper "cover" being added. Who knows, lol!? In any case, I wouldn't try to undo this. The chance that the covers fall apart after this much mistreatment vastly outweighs any potential gain from trying to tidy it up.

I believe there was a Black Octopus ashcan although I have never seen one myself (and can't find an image online, but then... I can't find much online evidence for the main-series ashcans either, so...). Regardless, all of these have to have been really limited runs.

Yeah, if you're not interested in the series for its own sake, I probably wouldn't pick up 1-5. Full runs sell well because they include #6, LOL.

Great find, #6 is quite the ghost book. For the completionist, the 2nd printing of #1 isn't exactly common either, but #6 is by far the choice issue.

I liked Fables quite a bit, but found Jack simply unreadable. I would take Fish Police over Jack with no hesitation. Unless you mean the TV adaption of Fish Police, which was... well, they canned it quickly, at least.

Not sure if this is "recent" enough for the QC manager's concerns, but it is from 2022. This book was submitted under the correct title (EverQuest Online Adventures: The Quest for Darkpaw), but slabbed with the title of a different book entirely -- albeit one based on the same franchise (EverQuest: The Ruins of Kunark). Note that this was not a label swap: there was no copy of EverQuest: The Ruins of Kunark in this submission. I'm fairly sure that the problem occurred during the onboarding process. At the time this was submitted, Quest for Darkpaw had not been previously graded; I had to enter the title in my submission form as a new book. If I tried to use the form to "autocomplete" the title, Ruins of Kunark was what it "thought" I wanted. When the submission was received at CGC and viewable through the tracking tool, it appeared as Ruins of Kunark. I assumed that the form's behavior was exactly what happened to the onboarding employee. The disappointing issue is that it wasn't corrected at the grading stage, nor was it detected as an obviously mislabeled slab by the QC team. In the interests of full disclosure, this did go back under an ME submission and has now been corrected. This is what I got back the first time. Despite my VG+ photography skills, it's clear that the label title doesn't match the book title at all. If I was better at photographing slabs, it would also be clear that the creator information at left is contradicted by the large credits text at the bottom of the cover. This is the correct labeling, and is how the slab appears following the ME resub: For reference, here's what a copy of EverQuest: The Ruins of Kunark actually looks like:

Interesting! Apparently Streamline reprinted more than just comics. Olive Baxter is a pseudonym for British author Helen Eastwood, who also published under her own name and as Fay Ramsay. She was best known as a romance novelist, but also dabbled in mystery/thrillers. She was a prolific writer, publishing dozens of books in a career that spanned four decades: from Cinderella's Sister in 1934 to A Letter for Veronica in 1974 (and perhaps books before and after those as well, as there's not a comprehensive list that I'm aware of). For much of her career, the vast majority of her books were initially published as hardcovers by London publisher Wright & Brown (later on, she moved to Robert Hale). WorldCat confirms this one was no exception -- the first printing of Reluctant Hero is a 1949 Wright & Brown book that was almost certainly a hardcover novel. I assume this Streamline paperback is a late '50s or possible early '60s reprint. No idea whether the cover art here reproduces art from the original dust jacket or whether it's a Streamline creation. Unfortunately, the Olive Baxter hardcovers are fairly scarce now, and I've had no luck tracking down an image of the original. If you're so inclined, the British Library in London appears to have a copy (as does Oxford and the NLS), although no idea if it has the original dust jacket.

I like Ragman more than the series deserves, to be honest. The cover of #1 is fantastic. The character design was solid, and the overall background and theme were ahead of their time. But... it's pretty clear that DC wasn't quite ready to commit to such a morally complex story back in 1976.

Finally back from CGC for the 2nd time, after a mechanical error resub to fix a very wrong label. Really immensely glad to have this safe at home where it belongs. I own a bunch of pretty scarce modern oddities -- the Rising Stars Philadelphia ComicCon book, both versions of the Legacy of Dark Crystal / Return to Labyrinth advertising preview flipbook, several oddball foreign books (especially including one goodie current in the hell of international shipping), Teeny Titans -- but this is almost certainly the rarest comic of any age in my collection.

8.5 estimates were right on the dot. Pretty happy about this one, since there was a very unexpected raw sale on ebay recently that went for over $1600 (and no, not to me!). I think that copy might be a 9.0/9.2 based on the limited scans available, but needless to say, I'll take the 8.5 in hand.

Holy!... that wraparound cover is amazing.

You know, for a minute I also had misread this thread to think that you pulled that 9.4 Batman Beyond #1 out of a dollar bin. And I guess I've become so accustomed to being jealous of posts in that dollar bin thread that I just sort of shrugged it off as of course there are Batman Beyond #1s in other people's dollar bins. My local dollar bins have like filler Batdrek in solid 2.5 grades and reader-grade indies so bad that I don't even collect them.

So, I think WATA and Heritage have been involved in some pretty shady stuff. I am... less optimistic that this lawsuit is going to resolve the issue. First off, I'm not even certain this class is going to get certified. To be certified for class action, there has to be a demonstration that all the class members were similarly situated. I'm dubious. There are a handful of people allegedly out big money, in the thousands of dollars, because they were charged 2% FMV grading fees on games where the FMV was wildly inflated. But most people getting games graded probably weren't hurt, or at least not hurt that badly, because only a fairly small handful of graded games ballooned to crazytown prices. I think that's why they stapled in the whole complaint about TATs -- it's an effort to make more people credibly part of an affected class. I am 100% not an expert on California commercial law, but I do think the pleading that WATA and Heritage (including through the individual actions of Halperin and Khan) conspired to artificially inflate the market value of graded games in order to charge customers based on the now-inflated prices has legs under the California UCL. I don't think the RICO claim is going anywhere; it's intentionally hard to demonstrate the elements of RICO. This is the claim with the best documentation (at least that's known to us plebs) and the only one with a chance for significant monetary findings. So that's a good way to start the suit. But... The TAT thing... ehh. We'll see. The suit claims that the super-long TATs (in some cases way worse than CGC's, on the order of 18 months!) constituted false advertising under California law. Maybe? A lot of stuff is actionable in California. I feel like WATA's defense here is just to say, hey, look, all these people wanted our service and we got busy. We kept believing we could get caught back up, but it never really happened. Sorry. And I can't imagine plaintiffs will be able to show that the class suffered monetary damages from that situation. Individuals, maybe, but the class as a whole? Good luck. So even if the court finds for the plaintiffs, what's the result? An injunction demanding that WATA set more accurate TATs? Be still, my beating heart. I guess the specific claim that WATA knew there would be delays when they moved operations from Colorado to California is a thing, along with their failure to notify customers that the games to be graded were being transported, or how, and that this runs afoul of California business transparency requirements. But again, so what? WATA is forced to say they're very sorry and they'll tell people if they relocate their HQ again? Pffft, whatever. I think this should have been filed as an individualized lawsuit by a handful of people burned the hardest on the 2% FMV fees, and the market manipulation aspect should have really been the entire focus of the suit. Throwing law at the wall and seeing what sticks is a strategy of sorts, but it risks a weaker case overall. Still, we'll see. I think there's enough alleged regarding the UCL claim that this would survive motions for summary dismissal, at the very least, assuming the class certifies. And at that point, really, WATA may consider just offering a token settlement, without acknowledging wrongdoing, that pays out some trivial amount of money per-person over the entirety of the class. If anything significant comes of this, it might lead to some hard choices from other collectibles grading companies (yes, including CGC) about how service pricing based on FMV is being implemented, if for no other reason than to reduce exposure to potential issues down the line. But right now, my use of bold font is only one reason that feels like a big "if".