Qalyar

I would strongly encourage you to, first, read the red-text post from @skypinkblu and, second, to recognize that this isn't helping.

I don't see any in the census, so I'd definitely contact them to ask before submitting. On the other hand, they do grade a lot of the Silver Age promo comics that are also smallish horizontal-format things.

It is not "our" place to provide incentives for good behavior to someone who has been willing, repeatedly, to engage in poor behavior. We are not training a pet, we're dealing with an adult (regardless of behavior to the contrary) and a businessman. If Dylan is willing to do those things because he is restricted from conducting business on these boards, or even banned from them, then all that means is that he is willing to do those things. All that means is that punitive action is even MORE warranted. Also, I'd encourage admin action regarding the account I'm quoting here. It is some combination of obvious shilling, ban evasion, or outright trolling, and there's no reason to allow the drama level here to escalate by indulging any of those things.

So, Dylan. I tried to stay out of most of the Dylan threads. Occasionally, I joked around in them like most of us. At least once, I tried to directly engage him and offer serious, legitimate advice to help him stop digging. Does he need to be on the Hall? For me, easy yes. We "met" Dylan with the character label debacle. I, like many others, believe he found -- and intentionally exploited -- what amounts to a bug in CGC's QA process. If he did, if that was entirely intended, it was little more than an effort to defraud the collecting community. And that would have been worthy of the Hall. But maybe it wasn't, so Dylan remained. We argued with him about restoration disclosures, and trimming. For my part, I don't think trimming is "restoration" either, exactly, but I'd sure as disclose a trimmed book. Dylan argued semantics. Someone who promised to intentionally obfuscate trimmed books would probably wind up on the Hall. But Dylan relented, although still claiming the high ground. Still, it was enough, and Dylan remained. We took a look at his grading practices, and saw reprehensible overgrading. Dylan himself admitted that was something of a breaching experiment to see what would actually drive returns. Again, in my mind, that's a fraud on the community. But consensus was it was Dylan's business and reputation that would count the cost, so Dylan remained. Along the way, he got into an ugly personal dispute with CGC, who runs these boards, spewing ill-considered but quotable memes and issuing (probably spurious) legal threats. I've moderated boards elsewhere in the nonsensical landscape of the internet, and everywhere I have (and nearly anywhere I've posted!) anyone making legal threats against the board owner would earn a one-way trip to Bantown. But not from CGC, it seems, so Dylan remained. This spilled over into ugly fights with others (Danielle, for example), that may very well have constituted interference with THEIR businesses. But it didn't happen here, on these boards, and so Dylan remained. And now we have what I quoted up there. When Dylan gets to respond, he'll probably say that wasn't actually a threat. But Dylan says a lot of things that aren't true. Because I think we all know how that was intended. And the phone calls? Maybe that rises to the level of harassment. Maybe it doesn't. But it isn't any more acceptable either way. Is this "interfering with a business"? You know, again? Probably. But it shouldn't matter what we call it. Dylan's behavior was unacceptable when he first attracted attention. It has been unacceptable the entire time since. It is unacceptable now. He has shown a willingness to defraud the community even if he rode technicalities such that he didn't quite cross the line. He's shown an eagerness to take fights off the boards and, now, into real life. Over and over, he's violated social norms, alienated people from our community, and generally made a heel of himself. And he's remained. It's time to show that, at this late hour, even if Dylan seemingly knows no shame, that he still belongs in its Hall.

$500?? Holy . Here I was thinking this had just squeaked in over the $250 line, maybe to someone really dedicated to collecting Vess art or something. But $500? This has to be an outlier oddball, sold to someone who doesn't understand how CGC works, right? Right?

Pirates #9 had a much lower print run than the rest of the series, has stunning cover art by Charles Vess (that matches nothing else in the series, admittedly), and... still shouldn't be a $250 slab (especially because I think that was a 9.6!).

I'd believe this. KoDT #1 had a print run of only 3000, and frankly all of the AEG-published issues (#1-#3) show up beat more often than neat. You'll note that the census for #1 has a lot of copies in 8.5-9.4, but only one 9.8 and two 9.6s. On the other hand, I low-key collect this title and this is 100% a "What in the how now??" result to me. Any idea if this was a newsstand copy? But even then... Newsstand editions of #1 aren't exactly scarce. Now, newsstands of #9 are a different story. Frankly, I have to assume that this was driven by someone misunderstanding the value of the title combined with apparent scarcity due to the low number of slabbed copies of this series in general (because, you know, the IP hasn't been touched in 20 years, maybe?).

Exactly. I'm fairly tolerant of minor color touch, especially on books that have been popular for a long time, because that sort of thing was socially acceptable for a long time, and, well, that craze (color) touched a lot of books. Situationally, stuff like page and cover reinforcement is even okayish. At its best, that's sort of a call back to the "collector condition" vs "archivist condition" conflict. Regardless, any purple book of course needs it's valuation moderated because of the restoration (or, if you'd prefer, because unrestored books command a premium). But some forms of restoration aren't... restoration. Instead, they're gross, irreversible manipulations of the book solely in an effort to inflate the apparent grade and appearance. They trade the physical integrity of the book for perceived profit. Foremost among those are trimming and reglossing. But non-conservation leaf casting is a hard no for me as well. And frankly, I'm not real fond of books assembled from several dead bodies, like Frankenstein's monster, with married covers and married CFs and so on.

As of circa 2010, scientific research on the topic has mostly settled on the idea that foxing is microbial-mediated cellulose oxidation, with a half-dozen or so type of fungi implicated as potential biological catalysts, as well as a couple of bacteria species. Foxing discoloration appears to result from a somewhat different chemical process than normal "mold" pigmentation, and it's probably less destructive to paper integrity. But it's still not a good thing to have happen to your book. In the interests of accuracy, oxidation of metal content in the paper is an alternative cause of foxing, but only in some fairly specific paper types; that's not where comic book foxing comes from.

Trimming is a terrible thing to do to a comic. I'm also extremely leery about "re-glossed" covers. The vast majority of reglossers basically just spray the cover with a thin coat of a clear acrylic. Beyond the basic fact that this isn't why GA/SA covers were glossy in the first place, not all acrylic sprays are created equal from an archival standpoint. In principle, clear acrylic shouldn't discolor or fog over time, but that doesn't take into account the solvents and propellants used, nor overall manufacturing quality and purity; in reality, some clear acrylics do degrade. Now, there absolutely are archival-grade acrylics, some of which are even used for encasement of paper material that cannot be otherwise conserved. But archival acrylics are like 15 bucks a can, and cheapo sprays are a third of that. Do you want to gamble the long-term stability of your expensive comic's artificially-restored cover on whether or not a guy -- one who was already okay trimming a book -- decided to buy the cheap stuff?

Well, you know, there's stacking and then there's stacking. If you've got five or even maybe a dozen slabs stacked horizontally, that's not the ideal archival configuration, but I wouldn't expect the slab weight to cause plastic deformation in the bottom slab. On the other hand, if you've got a custom-built tower so that you can stack your entire slabbed run of Detective Comics v1 #1-#881 (with or without variants, honestly), well, then you're in for a bad time. Somewhere in between there is the threshold where it's not a great idea.

There are actually positive things to say about parts of the prequel trilogy. The "Machete Order" (watching the films: 4 - 5 - 2 - 3 - 6) helps a lot. It makes the prequels into an extended flashback immediately after Luke learns about his father. The flashback ends with Anakin's descent into darkness, and then we return to the "present day" with the start of 6, where Luke, dressed in black robes, force chokes a Gamorrean guard, and you have to wonder if we're seeing him make the same descent. That viewing order also skips 1, which it turns out is almost completely skippable. Almost nothing that happens in 1 is revisited in 2 or 3, and even less is such without having events re-explained. You lose the worst of Jar-Jar's excesses, and you lose the offensive Jewish stereotype that is Watto completely. It's a win all around. This works because the tone and overall direction of the prequels was changed starkly after 1. Which is why the sequel trilogy is mostly kind of mediocre-to-bad. 7 is not a great film, but it's not a terrible film, either. But it underperformed the (impossible) expectations. As a result (and for other reasons, some of which weren't in the studio plan), 8 is a huge change in direction. Unfortunately, it was a change for the worse; 8 is arguably the worst film in the series. But unlike 1, where you can more or less just forget it's there, you can't cut the middle out of a trilogy. But 9 tried; going out of its way to undo as many of the primary plot directions that 8 did as it possibly could. The result is a muddled, muddy mess. What does this have to do with Star Wars vs. Star Trek? It's easy to see that Star Wars suffers when it tries to pivot its mood and direction. Star Trek does that all the time. Just look at the original run of films: between III and VI, no two consecutive films have even remotely similar mood and style. Search for Spock is a slow-paced largely cerebral film, Voyage Home is a period comedy, Final Frontier is a trash fire, Undiscovered Country is a (well-crafted) mystery/suspense film. And so forth. The Kelvin Timeline is the biggest departure yet, effectively retooling what was previously billed as sort of the thinking man's science fiction franchise into action-adventure tentpoles that are more or less "The Fast the Furious in Space". Also, in part, Star Wars succeeds as a franchise because has generally appeared in smaller doses, and had fewer opportunities to really screw up. There are, as of now, 11 Star Wars films (counting the excellent Rogue One and the largely forgettable Solo but not the holiday special that no one seriously considers), plus five television series (Droids and Ewoks -- which is safely forgotten, The Clone Wars, Rebels, Resistance, The Mandalorian). There are 13 Star Trek films, plus nine major television series (TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, Discovery, Picard, Lower Decks). On the Star Wars side, there's been a lot of great TV in the recent past (Clone Wars, Rebels, and The Mandalorian are all excellent), even though the films have been mostly poor. Star Trek, on the other hand, squandered great ideas with Voyayer and Enterprise, put out a film so bad (Nemesis) that it ended the franchise, and then had to reboot itself with a stylistic reset to get going again. People know, or at least think they know, what they are getting from Star Wars media. Star Trek has always been more of a vague outline that stories get inserted into. And I think that's a big part of what has kept Star Wars material's value so much higher than Star Trek's. And allowed the 'Wars franchise to shrug off the failures of its big screen efforts. I'm curious to see whether all of this holds. Disney+ has lined up a staggering future list of Star Wars franchise products. The Bad Batch, The Book of Boba Fett, Andor, Obi-Wan Kenobi, The Acolyte, Ahsoka, Lando, Rangers of the New Republic. If those keep up the Mandalorian's quality, it'll cover for the sequel trilogy's relative failure (and, comic-side, expect things like Star Wars: The Clone Wars #1 to hit even stupider prices). If they drop the ball, and people start to think that "Star Wars" might not always be material worth watching? Well... that might be a different story. I think the best of Star Trek easily competes with the best of Star Wars. But to catch up, in both accessory value and overall public interest, Star Trek would need to be serious about keeping a consistent tone and putting out consistently quality product. And there's just no real indication that Paramount is into such things.

Staining ... is bad. It's always bad. This stain is very bad. I'm far from the grade estimate expert around here, but I'd guess this would come back a 3.5 (or a 4.0 on a good day). Nothing with this sort of moisture damage / staining is likely to see above a 4.0. On the other hand... the front cover color conceals the worst of the damage there and the back cover is... not good, but better than a lot of back covers. Which means this will present quite nicely in slab as a 3.5, especially compared to books that arrive at the same grade through more conventional wear patterns and defects. So, basically, real shame about the stain, but nice book you've got there all the same.

I typically store my slabs spine-down because I believe that to be the most defensible from an archival standpoint. That said, flat stackable storage probably isn't a problem in most circumstances and the slabs have been designed with this in mind. I would personally avoid storing slabs in either upright orientation (spine at one side) or especially spine up (but who does this??) as these configurations place greater stress on the staples than the other choices. All told, it likely only really matters for books with detached or detaching staples, with weaker paper (out of safety, I'd consider all GA books to count), or with nonstandard bindings (threaded bindings, single-staple books).

Fundamentally, this comes down to the difference between modern collectibles handling and archival handling. The goal of the former, broadly, is to keep an object's condition as close to its original state as possible. The goal of the latter is to take whatever actions are necessary for its long-term preservation and stability. The former counsels keeping everything sealed in its original packaging. The latter... well, shrink wrap's archival outlook is not really okay. Just the idea should have obvious problems; it's a heat-sensitive plastic film. One might expect it to continue to shrink and deform over time, and indeed it does just that. Some shrink wrap polymers also degrade or outgas in ways incompatible with long-term conservation of paper. To say nothing of the often-but-not-always pressable damage caused by the wrap seam. I tend to take the archivist's view here because in my mind, eventually, the two positions will be forced to accept the same outcomes. Shrink wrap (and poly bags) are bad for books over time. Eventually, the copies closest to factory-production condition will be copies that have been removed from their packaging. But these are long term problems. If you want to collect factory sealed stuff, that's fine, too, and will be for a good many years. Many other collectors will laud you for it, and, perhaps, even pay a premium for the trouble.

Well, it isn't Scott Williams, Scott McDaniel, or Scott Hanna. I don't think it's Scott Hampton either but can't really rule that out entirety. Also don't see any way this could be Steve (Stephen) Scott. With such a common name, and no real context to go by, this is going to be an uphill effort to identify (assuming it's someone identifiable...).

Yep, lol! Fixing that...

So, green labels mean the books would receive the printed grade except for one (usually nonstandard) flaw. Low grade stuff rarely gets green labeled, because there's rarely one significant flaw marring an otherwise nice book. Qualified labels are sort of the exception to "grades are technical, not an appraisal of the book's visual appeal"; no one really wants a 2.0Q, but the green label exists to allow a 9.6-appearing 0.5U book to stand out from the copies in truly terrible overall condition. You can request universal labels from CGC where all flaws are considered. Most often, this is done for books that only exist as signed copies because some people prefer a 9.0U to a 9.6/9.8Q. Your mileage may vary, and such requests are at the graders' discretion. I don't think they regularly honor requests in the other direction.

For me, the surprise isn't that they were trying to sell them in more venues, but that they were selling returnable copies at that point.

And pushing back a little further, Dirt appears to have debuted in Strategic Review #7 (v2 #2). Issues #5 and #6 had single-panel illustrations that are clearly the predecessors to actual D&D comic strips, but didn't make any effort at a continuing continuity. I still bet there's earlier fanzine material (also, Dirt is not exactly the pinnacle of art in the medium, shall we say...).

I'm very wrong. A comic strip, after a fashion, titled Dirt and merely credited to "jake" appears on page 6 of Dragon #1.

I believe the first comic strip in Dragon is the first 6-panel appearance of Wormy by David Trampier, in #9 (September 1977). I would be amazed if there were not earlier comics in the various D&D fanzines that rapidly appeared in the mid-'70s. Many of these are remarkably difficult to locate, however, and I'm aware of no comprehensive index to their content. EDIT: NOPE! This was wrong; see below.

That InHyuk Lee cover is ... sort of okay, if not really anything novel, but wow I do not like that Patrick Gleason cover at all. Feel your conflict there.

A lot depends on what you want. Do you just want the prettiest book? Then... pick the book you think is prettiest. Grade numbers are a technical evaluation, which is not necessarily a indication of the book's visual appeal. On the other hand, are you considering this an investment, either in the short- or long-term? If so, you're probably better off with the 9.4; page quality is nice, and some people put a lot of stock in it, but generally speaking, it's that big black number that drives fair market value. Either way, you should check established sales on this book to make sure that the prices being offered are reasonable and appropriate, of course.

Aircel always had such a weird mix of actually-pretty-good books and terrible, low quality, "adult" comics with vaguely sex themes. That first category has a surprising number of striking covers, a disproportionate number of which have black backgrounds that rarely survive 20 years in dollar boxes... That Warlock 5 #1 looks pretty fantastic in grade!