Qalyar

Yeah, I certainly hope that he has just opted to spend his time and attention elsewhere, as opposed to any less fortunate reasons to be absent from the forums.

Not sure if this is the best place for this... I'd like to get in touch with forum member Aweandlorder. He hasn't been active here in almost a year at this point, but I know that he did business in other venues, including Amazon, but I don't know any of the details. If someone can help me get in contact with him, I'd certainly appreciate it.

I'm not a signature collector by any means, but there's a case to be made for the other members of the art team. Although for Avengers 57, that's sort of a moot point. The inker was George Klein, but he died relatively young, in 1969. And Sam Rosen did the lettering, but he suffered from mental health issues beginning in the early 1970s and so stayed essentially entirely out of the public eye until his death in 1992. It's impossible to have a yellow label signature from either of them, and I'd be more than a little surprised if either signed very many comics at all (much less this specific issue). There's also a panel on page 3 that was redrawn before publication by artist and colorist Marie Severin, but unfortunately, she isn't with us anymore either, as of 2018. In any case, personally, I don't support getting important pre-Modern (and especially GA/SA) books signed at all, doubly so for high grade copies (although a 5.5 Avengers 57 isn't that). Having them signed by people unrelated to the book's actual production -- or who, like Bettany in this case -- weren't actually even alive at the time the book released, feels particularly garish.

There are at least a handful of recognized error books caused by mismatches between intended color and printed color; I think the best-known of these is the Malibu Sun #13 error with the weird yellowish-green Spawn on the back cover. The Sandman (v2) #18 error where the first page has the yellow and blue ink swapped is also in this vein. Anyway, that's 100% not what's going on with the OP's book.

The idea that a digital object can only have one unique NFT is technically correct, but operationally facile because it assumes the system is operating in good faith. Let's say I have a digital object representing an image, and I assign to it an NFT. Then, I create a digital object that is identical to the first except in some trivial aspect (perhaps one pixel has a single color element altered by 1... or perhaps the difference is a trivial alteration of a non-disclosure field in the format's file header), and I assign THAT object an NFT. One of these digital objects is the original. The other is not. There is no prima facie method to determine which came "first". If you own one of the NFTs, you have a statement of ownership, but it is a weird form of ownership that offers no control over the object "owned" and that maintains its uniqueness only.so long as the system operates is relative.good faith. EDIT: But if there's Glenlivet in it for me, then, hey, long live NFTs.

I reserve "grail" with regard to my personal collection for books that: are impossible to find on demand (if it is available for purchase at-will, it's not a grail even if I can't afford it now), will be markedly more expensive than comparable.books when I do find it (if it takes me years to find, but it's only worth $20, that might be a chase book, but it isn't a grail), are significant to the sub-collection they are part of (random fill can't be a grail; it has to be something legitimately special), and grant me eternal life when used wisely. Well, three out of four, anyway.

Here's the difference. If I own Star Wars #1, I have a thing. There are a finite number of those things. If the number of people who want to own Star Wars #1 is even one greater than the number of copies, someone is not going to have a copy. There can be reprints, but those are distinguishable from my thing, and so may or may not be worth as much to various collectors. If I own a digital file with an NFT assigning ownership to me, that's very different. It doesn't matter if the digital file is ostensibly 1/1. An arbitrarily large number of copies can exist at any time. If more people want copies of the digital object than there are copies extant... more copies can be produced. Also, a copy made six months from now, or 2 years, or 20 years, is the same in every respect as my copy. The only distinction is the NFT that identifies me as the owner. So, at least two problems here. First and foremost, so what? The NFT as certificate of ownership only has any meaning if everyone ascribes meaning to it, because it doesn't actually provide any of the physical benefits we typically associated with ownership of an object. Second, the NFT itself has scarcity only so long as everyone agrees that it does. There's no concrete mechanism to prevent more NFTs from being issued. NFTs aren't really certificates of authenticity. And they aren't really ownership in the normal sense. You get a token that says you are the owner of a thing that, from a certain philosophical standpoint, doesn't have ownership defined for it. Look, I get why they're appealing. People want digital goods to have "uniqueness", to be finite, like physical goods are. I just don't see this as filling that gap.

Masking tape, yep. And sometimes on the really old books, the rubberized adhesive tape that predates widespread adoption of Scotch cellophane tape.

So, obviously, the first "conservation" efforts were glue and adhesive tape. No one knew back then, but they're their own problems now. It became obvious by the late '70s or early '80s that there was a problem, especially with books printed on exceptionally low quality paper (All Negro Comics comes to mind). But the restoration craze did real damage to the cause of legitimate conservation work. When collectors -- rightly -- rejected Dupcak style manipulations as a Bad Thing, preferences threw the baby out with the bathwater. Because let's be honest here. Stuff like staple replacement is something we're probably going to have to deal with. Low cost staples from 70 years ago are a rust risk. Once decay starts, there's no realistic countermeasures. Staple replacement is better for conservation than risking rust migration. But when we rejected trimming, the goal became maintaining books in precisely as-issued condition, and any process that improved the book was instantly verboten. Except pressing, I guess... We have some pretty solid reversible archival options right now. Archival tape reinforcement, Japanese paper, neutral starch filler. I think CGC is doing a very good thing by establishing the Conserved label. But I think there are a lot of questions about what ought to count as restoration. We have a lot (a lot!) of books reassembled from parts. Married folds and married covers. Is that conservation, or restoration, or just a defect? Leaf casting is, strictly speaking, not a reversible archival process; can that still be conservation work even when it's done for stability and not as part of an effort to create Frankenbooks? There's a lot of ongoing research into de-lignification, which could be a game-changer but would currently be chemical restoration. Personally, I support reversible archival conservation, and staple replacement when warranted. I oppose married books on philosophical grounds, and currently lean oppose on leaf casting repairs. I support de-acidification and am likely to support de-lignification if that pans out, but I do not support straight-up page lightening/whitening done in and of itself on appearance grounds. I can't pretend that my views ought to be adapted by everyone, or that they aren't subject to further change.

Call me a Luddite, but I really do not understand the appeal of this NFT craze. You ... do not own anything by buying an NFT, except a digital signature that represents you are, in some philosophical sense, the unique "owner" of a digital object that need not itself be (and, indeed, probably very much isn't) unique. I can't help but feel that it's like buying a sham deed to the Brooklyn Bridge. Sure, you're the owner... of that deed, but it has no impact on the physical world, nor any actual connection to the object it purports to represent. I'm probably missing something, but I can't imagine this craze lasting very long...

I acquired a recently slabbed book that I'm actually quite happy with. But slotting it into the display alongside its friends, it is obviously in a case about 1/3 thicker than the rest of my current-era cases. There's nothing weird about this book; it's just a standard-dimension modern comic with no tricks. Has CGC switched to a thicker case design recently, or did this get slabbed in a case normally reserved for bulkier items, or am I just crazy?

Sooner or later, a certain amount of conservation tolerance is going to be mandatory if we want to continue having structurally sound Golden Age books. It is likely going to take some time -- probably on the order of a couple of decades -- for the broad collecting community to work out where the boundaries lie. I'm pretty certain we're never going back to the '80s era of manipulating books solely for their appearance; trimmed books will be poisoned forever. But when it's acceptable to marry a cover or fold, or to replace staples, or whether it's acceptable to use leaf casting to stabilize a corner at risk of separation (versus just strengthening it with archival tape, or taking the loss) ... are not questions that are necessarily going to have the same answers in 2035 or 2045 that they do today.

Most the the variant covers for Archaia's assorted Labyrinth books are pretty good. The coloring book version of the 30th Anniversary special is really cute. Bastian's variant for Under the Spell is everything you want from a Bastian cover. The ComicsPRO cover for Coronation 1 hits Labyrinth's fantasy aesthetic square on. And then there's the Coronation 1 Fried Pie cover. Maybe I'm just not a fan of Tula Lotay?

This isn't unique to that era of books. Many covers have substantial color breaking along the spine. It's most pronounced on thicker covers, especially actual card stock, and worse still when that material is heavily inked and semi- or full-gloss. It's a production defect, and an and of itself shouldn't affect the grade of anything 9.8 or lower. When you think about it, it makes sense, the cover was folded in half, so it's not unreasonable for the spine to represent a color-breaking crease. That said, this can precondition the spine for more serious problems if it isn't handled well; doubly so on those thick covers that also accumulate bindery tears at the corners. The bindery flaw at the corner can propagate along the weakened spine crease. But at that point, you're probably not looking at a comic that would have been high grade in the first place (and certainly isn't going to be).

At first glance, these might look like normal copies of Black Hole. But if you're familiar with the series, something might seem just a little off about these covers. For me, the bottom-left one seems most out of place, because the title in the original is in all lower case... and not at all that weird green color! That's because this is the six-issue German edition of Black Hole, published by Reprodukt. Each of these is a hefty square bound book that reprints two issues apiece of the original English series, which clocks them in at around 64 pages. On fairly good paper and with stuff cardstock covers, they feel bigger than that. Quality is pretty solid, in part because these sorts of heavy covers hold up way, way better as square bound books than folded and cut by blades that aren't up to the job (nope, that's not a dig at the originals, nope...). Except for the covers and some section titles, the interior has received full German localization. But boy are some of those covers weird. Book 1, containing English issues 1 and 2, uses the art from 7, which seems to have been chosen utterly randomly. The remaining issues use the English covers from 4, 5, 8, 9, and 11, respectively, which means they at least have a cover from one of their constituent stories. Except these covers also aren't quite the same; for several of these books, they re-styled and/or re-colored the title text. The covers originally used for 7 (German 1) and 8 (German 4) are the most noticeable. I really have no idea why they re-matted the titles on these covers but opted not to localize them into German (in contrast, the Spanish release DID retitle them in translation). Regardless, these were released over about a six year period by Reprodukt, who then made full sets available in a sort of slipcased box set. These copies are from such a box set, but as far as I can tell, they are indistinguishable from individual copies.

Yeah, I think you might end up better than break-even on this one.

Sorry for the late reply here. I think if there's no listed printing information, it should be good to go as a 1st print. I know that for some of the later issues, the indicia clearly states print number for reprints.

If you want something more recent, Knights of the Dinner Table #1 (Alderac Entertainment Group, 1994) isn't exactly rare, with a print run of 3000 copies and 35 on census. But it is legitimately hard to find 9.6/9.8 copies (2 and 1 on census, respectively; many copies shipped with defects) and it's a popular title that moved beyond its indie published roots. Not that I think it's worth even close to the price the sole 9.8 is currently consigned for at MCS... But speaking of its roots, KoDT's first appearance is in Alderac's gaming magazine. Shadis #2 (1990) is pretty elusive, but was also (I believe) essentially a photocopied fanzine at the time and so may or may not be eligible for grading.

Not guaranteed. We're used to modern (here, broader than Modern) comics produced with enough quality control that all copies start out the same size. But for GA into early SA (and perhaps later for smaller publishers) that isn't a certainty. The blades used to cut comics to size were not always aligned correctly, and didn't always stay aligned. As a result, you can sometimes find books narrower or wider than expected, or even crazy looking things like trapezoid cuts (where the right side of the book isn't parallel to the spine). So, basically, mis-sized books are a cause for caution but not a conclusive red flag in and of themselves.

Sex sells Cry for Dawn #5. Obviously.

That's actually Steve Leialoha, although certainly not his best work. He's probably best known these days as Mark Buckingham's inker on Fables (since that won them an Eisner), but he's one of those artists who has done a pretty long list of work (for Dark Horse, DC, and Marvel) without ever really being an A-lister. That said, those Captain Justice covers? Still bad.

Technically this is a "Zodiac comic" cover. And technically correct is the best kind of correct! For the record, this miniseries wasn't exactly bad, and the art style hits its goal, but it certainly isn't going in a Best of Dark Horse.

Of course I have "previous knowledge". I read this board for probably 18 months, off and on, before registering or posting here. I've read an awful lot of this forum's back history. Sometimes old threads get linked, sometimes I just browse the back issues, as it were. And seriously, I've posted in other hobby forums, and been admin a few of them, over the last 20 years. Offline, I worked in several brick and mortar comics and collectibles stores and was operating manager for one for awhile when I was quite a bit younger. I'm not wet behind the ears. I know how comics and message boards work. Nevertheless, again, this is, was, and always will be my sole account. Look, I don't want to cause drama. I want to talk about comics. I especially want to talk about weird late-Bronze/early-Modern stuff that mostly isn't even the hot spec titles of the week/month/year. I've got some really cool German reprints of a great indie title that should be arriving Monday or Tuesday; I want to talk about those. I want to find people who can help me chase down the similar series I know is out there in Spanish. If you want to hold bad opinions about me personally, well, I'm sad to hear it. I've done nothing to wrong you that I'm aware of, and would have tried to make amends if I had. You're evidently mostly a GA collector so I doubt we would have ever had cause to do business with each other; my girlfriend would off me in my sleep if I got back into GA material. But that's not the point. Making public insinuations about my identity and public accusations that I am a shill -- and thus, by definition, violating the terms of use here and unsuitable for anyone to do business with -- is not cool, man. You've been here years more than I have, and have over 100 times my post count, so I trust you can see why I don't find this acceptable. Especially since you're refusing to retract or give me any means to demonstrate that I'm NOT what you claim, I'm going to await skypinkblu's response as to what my administrative options are here. Or, you know, just talk to me. I'm not trying to conceal who I am. Especially if you're willing to go to PMs about identity-related topics, I don't have anything to hide. It doesn't have to be this way.

You are wrong. Although I've been a reader of this forum for quite some time before registering this account, I avow in absolutely no uncertain terms that this is the only registered account I have had, or will have, here. I've been associated with this username in my hobby-related online presence (not just comics) for the better part of two decades. I am absolutely not a shill. Because this claim is potentially harmful to my ability to interact with the community and conduct business here, I'm going to have to insist that you retract it. @skypinkblu I'd like your input here in your role as coordinator.

Since the person he was responding to is me, and I believe this is the second time you've made a post that seems to insinuate something nefarious about me... Is there something you'd like to come out and accuse me of? Or do you simply feel my time at this forum is insufficient to entitle me to opinions about how the community does, or should, operate?