Superman2006

Let me try another angle on this one, since nobody other than God (not even Gator ) knows everything; Dear Gator, Is there anything you don't know about Golden Age comics?

Very nice! I look forward to seeing your next one!

What is your best guess as to when the Pedigree book is finally completed and becomes available for purchase? Edit: I just read Matt's update in the Pedigree thread and it sounds like it might actually not be too far away, if he can find some time to wrap it up...

Claudio and I have completed a couple of transactions and it is always a pleasure to deal with him. Thanks, buddy!

Indeed!

No problem. Good luck!

The girl on Action #27 looks as much like Lois Lane to me as the girl on Action #29, so what you're saying makes sense to me, unless Bob has some other reason for deeming Action #29 to be the 1st Lois Lane (like my theory about a possible matching splash or panel or story line involving Lois Lane for the image on Action #29 but not for the image on Action #27, although I haven't actually heard that to be the case - I guess I should dig out my reprints sometime and check it out, and search for that old thread too, . ). I found the thread. It's wasn't easy. Arnold Bloomburg makes a comment about this possible misprint in this thread. He also comments on how to get it changed. http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=669171&fpart=1 Nice thread find, Mike. It looks like burntboy's thoughts in there paralleled some of mine, including... "i voted lois based on looks alone. does anyone have these issues or are there archives of these. perhaps the covers do correlate to the interior stories - that would answer the question............" From what I recall, the covers didn't always line up with the stories inside, so I'll see if I can dig up my archives and see if either cover matches any of the interior stories from around issues in the 20's to early 30's... I thought it was funny that a zerox was required, instead of a scan. Also, why couldn't Arnold take care of this after reading and posting in the thread? I flipped through Action Comics Archives Volumes 1 and 2 (reprinting issues 1 through 36), and didn't find conclusive evidence that the girl on either Action #27 or Action #29 is Lois Lane, so unless Overstreet knows something we don't, based on looks alone, I would agree that there is pretty much as much support for Lois Lane being on the cover of Action #27 as there is for her being on the cover of Action #29. Support for Lois being on the cover of Action #27 (aside from looking like Lois, which isn't exactly foolproof, since she didn't always wear a yellow dress prior to issue #27, although she usually did): i. Action #28 involves a circus type story, and it is in close proximity to issue #27 Non-conclusive because: i. No lion is involved in the story in Action #28 ii. While at the circus, Lois is wearing a green jacket and a black hat, neither of which appear on the girl on the cover of Action #27 Support for Lois being on the cover of Action #27 (aside from looking like Lois, which isn't exactly foolproof, since she didn't always wear a yellow dress prior to issue #29, although she usually did): i. Action #26 has a panel showing Supes leaping while carrying Lois who is wearing a yellow dress, and is in relatively close proximity to issue #29 Non-conclusive because: i. Lois is not bound and gagged or jumping over a car in the image in issue #26 ii. Might be stretch to associate a panel from 3 issues back to the inspiration to the cover of issue #29 (although you never know since the buzz saw image on a panel from Action #13 appears to be eerily similar to the cover to Action #85, as is the Action #7 cover to a panel from Action #1...)

The girl on Action #27 looks as much like Lois Lane to me as the girl on Action #29, so what you're saying makes sense to me, unless Bob has some other reason for deeming Action #29 to be the 1st Lois Lane (like my theory about a possible matching splash or panel or story line involving Lois Lane for the image on Action #29 but not for the image on Action #27, although I haven't actually heard that to be the case - I guess I should dig out my reprints sometime and check it out, and search for that old thread too, . ). I found the thread. It's wasn't easy. Arnold Bloomburg makes a comment about this possible misprint in this thread. He also comments on how to get it changed. http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=669171&fpart=1 Nice thread find, Mike. It looks like burntboy's thoughts in there paralleled some of mine, including... "i voted lois based on looks alone. does anyone have these issues or are there archives of these. perhaps the covers do correlate to the interior stories - that would answer the question............" From what I recall, the covers didn't always line up with the stories inside, so I'll see if I can dig up my archives and see if either cover matches any of the interior stories from around issues in the 20's to early 30's...

The girl on Action #27 looks as much like Lois Lane to me as the girl on Action #29, so what you're saying makes sense to me, unless Bob has some other reason for deeming Action #29 to be the 1st Lois Lane (like my theory about a possible matching splash or panel or story line involving Lois Lane for the image on Action #29 but not for the image on Action #27, although I haven't actually heard that to be the case - I guess I should dig out my reprints sometime and check it out, and search for that old thread too, . ).

Nice pickup, Mike. That's a really nice looking 5.0, and great PQ too! Unless something has changed, I believe that Overstreet still deems Action #29 to be the 1st Lois Lane cover. However, I think there was a thread a year or two ago making the argument that the girl on Action #27 looks like Lois Lane. Do you know if either the Action #27 or the Action #29 cover is similar to a slash, or panel in an Action Comic from around that time-frame, similar to the cover to Detective #40 being similar to one of the splash pages in Batman #1? If so, perhaps that would provide more support to the argument for either Action #27 or Action #29 being the first appearance of Lois Lane on the cover (that or checking with Bob Overstreet to see why he deemed Action #29 to be the first Lois Lane cover).

I purchased another book from Jake and I couldn't be happier. Jake was a pleasure to deal with from start to finish once again.

Fair enough. Every one sees things differently. It's what makes the world go round. With all do respect, you and Trey are the only ones that are seeing things differently. I am sure he appreciates your efforts though. I am not trying to be mean but, that's how I see it. No problem. Understand that I am not saying Trey is innocent, just that I understand why he thought it was ok, that I would have handled the situation differently and that the law cuts both ways. Just like a double edged saw blade. Trey knew it was against the rules to sell PGX books here, so he tried to scam people by cropping the scan, hiding the label & claiming it wasn't a PGX book. Roy, at what point does the offenses become so egregious that you don't immediately jump to someones defense? I realize you don't like seeing a boardie pile-up, that you always have a soft spot for the underdog, but in this particular matter, you're stretching yourself so far to downplay the seriousness of the situation that it's almost insulting to those of us watching from the sidelines. If Trey "operat[es] on a different psychological and mental level" than the rest of us, that's his problem, not ours - and it certainly doesn't mean that he deserves special treatment for behaviour that under any other circumstance would result in a righteous tarring & feathering. Regarding bold part above: From my reading of his sales thread, I don't recall Trey claiming that it wasn't a PGX book. Unless you saw this in his thread for yourself, I'm guessing that this tidbid isn't really fact, but someone stated it and then has been repeated by others including yourself since then. Of course if you saw it for yourself, then I'll take your word for it. Trey did crop the scan, but based on Aces' comments and from what I recall seeing in the past, this seems to be in line with what other sellers of PGX books have done in the past, and I don't recall them being trashed for it quite like Trey has been. While I don't believe Trey mentioned that it was in another company's slab, like Aces suggested he & others might have done, given the cropped scan, the lack of "CGC" being denoted prior to his grade, and the pursuing comments in his thread, prior to Joey's I'll take it, it seemed pretty clear to me that it wasn't a CGC book (although there was obviously room for confusion, so I obviously don't fault Joey for not realizing that it wasn't a CGC book until he received it). Of course I agree that Trey didn't handle everything in the best way after he started to get piled on, including his posting negative comments in Joey's feedback thread, or his threatening legal action (which I don't recall seeing anywhere for myself, but if JazzMan said that he did, then that's good enough for me). He's a bit socially awkward perhaps, but I really don't think he sold this book with the intent to deceive, at least IMHO. Trey got called out on the thread for having a PGX book, he refused to take the book down. Trey deliberately refused to follow the rules. I'm not sure why Joey bought it, since the there were posts saying it was PGX before he posted the take it and Trey's responses were snippy at best...but the fact remains that Trey deliberately sold or tried to sell a PGX book, it's just plain wrong. Perhaps it's time to amend the rules to add, the selling PGX or non CGC books. Although CGC can take the threads down, delete posts when non CGC books are listed, we are all guests of the company, and as good guests, we should be respectful of our hosts, and perhaps even help out a little. I've been around for a while and I NEVER remember it being "okay" to sell pgx books, I remember people cropping them, pretending and ignoring posts by people who call them out...but I never remember it being "OK". There were definitely sellers who ignored, or tried to ignore the rules, but it certainly was not sanctioned by everyone, I know that many people were upset when these transgressions arose. It's just not respectful to go to a picnic sponsored by Coca Cola and bring a cooler full of Pepsi. We are all adults here (or most of us;) and we should know better...and if perhaps there are those of us who don't, then they belong on the probation list, for acts not benefiting the community...maybe with an asterisk next to their names. I totally agree with the bold part above. While I agree that there are obviously some issues with Trey's handling of the situation after it blew up, IMHO he should get a pass this time, probation-wise, on the whole cropping of a PGX image thing since I don't recall anyone else being called out on it to the degree that Trey has been. His other follow up actions could still be fair game if pursued by others.

Fair enough. Every one sees things differently. It's what makes the world go round. With all do respect, you and Trey are the only ones that are seeing things differently. I am sure he appreciates your efforts though. I am not trying to be mean but, that's how I see it. No problem. Understand that I am not saying Trey is innocent, just that I understand why he thought it was ok, that I would have handled the situation differently and that the law cuts both ways. Just like a double edged saw blade. Trey knew it was against the rules to sell PGX books here, so he tried to scam people by cropping the scan, hiding the label & claiming it wasn't a PGX book. Roy, at what point does the offenses become so egregious that you don't immediately jump to someones defense? I realize you don't like seeing a boardie pile-up, that you always have a soft spot for the underdog, but in this particular matter, you're stretching yourself so far to downplay the seriousness of the situation that it's almost insulting to those of us watching from the sidelines. If Trey "operat[es] on a different psychological and mental level" than the rest of us, that's his problem, not ours - and it certainly doesn't mean that he deserves special treatment for behaviour that under any other circumstance would result in a righteous tarring & feathering. Regarding bold part above: From my reading of his sales thread, I don't recall Trey claiming that it wasn't a PGX book. Unless you saw this in his thread for yourself, I'm guessing that this tidbid isn't really fact, but someone stated it and then has been repeated by others including yourself since then. Of course if you saw it for yourself, then I'll take your word for it. Trey did crop the scan, but based on Aces' comments and from what I recall seeing in the past, this seems to be in line with what other sellers of PGX books have done in the past, and I don't recall them being trashed for it quite like Trey has been. While I don't believe Trey mentioned that it was in another company's slab, like Aces suggested he & others might have done, given the cropped scan, the lack of "CGC" being denoted prior to his grade, and the pursuing comments in his thread, prior to Joey's I'll take it, it seemed pretty clear to me that it wasn't a CGC book (although there was obviously room for confusion, so I obviously don't fault Joey for not realizing that it wasn't a CGC book until he received it). Of course I agree that Trey didn't handle everything in the best way after he started to get piled on, including his posting negative comments in Joey's feedback thread, or his threatening legal action (which I don't recall seeing anywhere for myself, but if JazzMan said that he did, then that's good enough for me). He's a bit socially awkward perhaps, but I really don't think he sold this book with the intent to deceive, at least IMHO.

Hello, Mr. Gator. How much will the ComicConnect 9.0 Action #1 sell for?

I had an awesome buying experience with Adam. He is one of the most reputable board and eBay sellers out there. Highly recommended.

According to page 273 of this sweet reference tool that skypinkblu shared, it says only 60, including covers ?? http://twomorrows.com/alterego/media/Golden%20Age%20Index.pdf So it sounds like GCB says 68, Howard Keltner's Index says 60, and you have a copy with 64. Maybe Gator knows the answer.

Thanks for another great book, Andy!

Jake is a top notch seller. Excellent communication, fast shipping, and bullet proof packaging. Thanks, bro!

Recall that a couple of 8.0 copies of OAAW #81 recently sold in the $6,600 to $7,000 range. Personally, I don't think that this 7.5 sale of OAAW #83 would impact the value of those 8.0 copies much, if at all. I think that this sale just provides further support to the fact that OAAW #83 is THE highest valued and most sought after Sgt Rock book out there. At least that's my opinion.

Indeed. It went from $3,300 to $9,600 in the last 10 seconds of bidding. 4 bids over $9K in the last 10 seconds...

] Pure awesomeness!

Awesome book, Mike!

I purchased a few books from Andy's recent sales thread (which was my favorite sales thread ever, between the incredible selection of war books, and the exciting and generous promotions, etc.) To repeat what Jeffro stated, since I couldn't say it any better myself; "Andy is one of the best sellers on the boards. Great pricing, accurate grading and rock solid packaging. He's also one of the most generous people I've ever dealt with. Buy from him with confidence." Thanks, Andy!

Nice book!