Superman2006

On 4/7/2023 at 12:19 AM, Dr. Love said:

Two step fiasco

First step - Most of the raw Promise auctions I looked up refer to an included COA, but don't actually show the cert.  This Blue Beetle 44 did. At least in this case, HA issued a raw ped cert without any grade.  Unlike the Crippen cert.  This allows that generic cert to be submitted with any copy of that issue.  If this is what happened here, then HA pure fail for not including the grade they assigned to the book for auction.

Second step - shyster with a modicum of intelligence and some cunning submits a higher non Promise grade copy of that issue with the carte blanche cert, counting on CGC's grading process to not run a check against the HA image of the raw book.  CGC:  too much time, too much trouble?  CGC:  why would anyone game the system?  If this is what happened here, then CGC pure fail.

btw - in terms of opportunity - out of approx 813 Promise raw, 191 are the grades that could be exploited for this type of scheme - between Poor and VG/F.

Thanks for sharing. I wasn't aware that certificates with no grade were issued by Heritage.  Good job by MasterChief in shedding light on this potential issue, as usual, and to you for explaining how this could have happened.

On 3/31/2023 at 1:06 AM, MasterChief said:

Update!

Current Promise Collection ROI snapshot.

Chart includes 39 auctions closed in March.

Data sorted oldest to newest Sale Date.

Note: Currently tracking 19 Heritage lots that will close April 1 – 6. Those sales with be reported with April's update.   

(Source: Heritage Auctions (HA), Comic Connect (CC), ComicLink (CL), eBay)

I really like your second chart showing a summary of month-over-month Gains / Losses on Promise books.

As time passes, assuming the Golden Age market continues is upward trajectory, there may eventually only be gains from month-to-month, but the results in the early years seems to suggest that the books that have returned to market so far have fared about as well as purchasing an average new car from a dealer, and driving it off the lot.  Given decreased values on Silver / Bronze / Modern books, sports cards, and various other non-comics assets, an average loss of 20% on the Promise books doesn't sound too bad.

On 4/6/2023 at 1:23 PM, MasterChief said:

On 4/6/2023 at 10:47 AM, Robot Man said:

Anybody see the Blue Beetle 44 7.0 that sold for $1,000. On the bay this week? I think it is the first Promise book I have noticed there. I have no idea what it originally sold for. I wouldn’t have paid $1K for it Promise or not. Just interesting to see them being retreaded. 

That eBay book is a counterfeit. It's not the Promise copy.

Just a cursory comparison of the two covers is a dead giveaway.

eBay: Blue beetle #44 CGC 7.0 from the Promise collection! Rare Find!!!

Heritage Auction  #122213: Blue Beetle #44 The Promise Collection Pedigree (Fox Features Syndicate, 1946) Condition: VG+

When you say the "eBay book is a counterfeit", I think you just mean that it's not a Promise copy, as opposed to actually being a counterfeit book or counterfeit CGC label, right?

When I look up the cert # from the eBay copy, 4146370007, it shows up on the CGC census as being a CGC 7.0 copy of Blue Beetle #44 from the Promise Collection.

Maybe there was more than one Promise copy of Blue Beetle #44, even if Heritage just auctioned off the lower graded copy?

On 4/3/2023 at 3:52 PM, Stronguy said:

I have a handful of early 50s DC that came from an OO collection.  I know the OO purchased them all from the same newsstand up to a certain point.  Every book from early 1950 thru mid-1952 has the same nail hole in the upper left corner.  Any idea what this would have come from?  One theory is these were display copies that were nailed up along the top/side of the newsstand.  Thoughts?

Maybe the newsstand or OO stuck a thumbtack through them to hang them on a wall?  Oops - nevermind, I didn't read your last sentence; it looks like you already thought of that (reading failure!)

On 4/3/2023 at 3:43 PM, s-man said:

Using a shredder on it would really maximize profits! 

Or just shred part of it; the Banksy shredded Batman 1 variant.

Me too, please, and thank you.

On 3/16/2023 at 8:00 PM, AbsoluteCarnage said:

On 3/16/2023 at 7:44 PM, Cman429 said:

I’m noticing certain books Todd is more likely to t-bag you on. Like it seems he almost always does it on a ASM300. It’d be interesting if some dirty stats nerd went through this thread and like eBay listings and came up with a spreadsheet on which books most frequently get the t-bag while which are more apt to get a full proper Tood Mc sig.

I think if he has to sign another 30,000 books we'll be lucky to see TM TMac or maybe even TDawg if he's being generous ;-)

A few unlucky submissions might even get signed "TBag" just for fun

Congrats to TC33 and the other top finishers!

I finished one point out of a top 10 finish, ending my continuous streak of top 10 finishes dating back to the 2nd contest (I didn't join the first one). The competition is getting tougher!

4 points on the first 2 books for a score of 5 total (my usual).

Thanks for another fun contest, Mike!

The graders notes for the ASM #5 above don't mention fading. 

I know CGC is moving toward fewer label notes rather than more, but in the case of fading, it would be great if CGC had a policy to always note the degree of any fading in the graders notes (e.g. slight fading, moderate fading, severe fading).

If it was CGC policy to note the degree of any fading in the graders notes and you got a faded book back from CGC that didn't note the fading in the notes, then would want to contact CGC ASAP after getting it back and send pictures (or the book) to CGC to review / update the graders notes. Without fading noted in the grader's notes, buyers may assume that any fading occurred post-slabbing.

On 1/27/2023 at 11:44 AM, waynemel said:

My Mechanical Error submission (for my spider-Man #1) came back and am happy with the TAT.  For those who have to resubmit due to cracks/damages, here is my timeline for your reference,

01/04 - sent back to CGC via FedEx

01/11 - Marked as SFG

01/19 - GEI

01/20 - GQC

01/23 - Shipped

01/26 - Received

It looks like you got lucky and your ME submission somehow skipped the line and got fast tracked. To manage the expectations of others in case they've been waiting a bit longer on their ME submission like I have, here is the timeline on my ME submission (labels on two of my Todd SS books were switched);

11/23/2022 - sent back to CGC via FedEx

11/29/2022 - delivered to CGC

12/27/2022 - Marked as SFG

1/27/2023 - GEI

On 1/19/2023 at 11:06 PM, Sweet Lou 14 said:

Just for the heck of it, here are the census numbers and GoCollect FMVs for the six #1s that emerged from the classic monster titles in 1968, ranked by census count:

• Sub-Mariner #1:  77 in 9.8 ($12,000), 160 in 9.6 ($2,500)
• Nick Fury #1:  59 in 9.8 ($3,500), 129 in 9.6 ($1,250)
• Captain America #100:  45 in 9.8 ($9,500), 60 in 9.6 ($6,750) -- the 9.6 FMV seems suspect, likely distorted by a recent sale of a 9.4 for over $4K
• Doctor Strange #169:  40 in 9.8 ($9,750), 79 in 9.6 ($3,700)
• Iron Man #1:  35 in 9.8 ($30,000), 92 in 9.6 ($7,750)
• Incredible Hulk #102:  25 in 9.8 ($10,500), 96 in 9.6 ($4,300)

So yes, Nick Fury #1 is near the top of the list in terms of supply, but I don't think that alone could explain how badly it lags behind the others on price.

The first appearances for each of the characters above not named Fury are worth more than the first appearance of Sgt. Fury, and have been going back many years before Samuel L. Jackson got involved, so I think it's simply due to popularity of the various characters, right?

Looking at the 9.8 prices you shared above, I don't understand why Iron Man #1 in 9.8 is worth so much more than Hulk #102 in 9.8, other than the fact that Iron Man is a #1, and not a #102.

I think it means that the actual bids aren't really that high, but since it's close to the end of the auction, CLink is showing the reserve amount less one bid increment. If you go to the page for that listing, and hit the "history" button, you'll see what I mean.

On 1/16/2023 at 5:14 PM, Ronperez said:

On 12/29/2022 at 4:40 PM, VintageComics said:

They're behind on everything. I've had Walk Throughs, which used to be in and out in 2 days take up to a week just to get entered into the system and up to two weeks before they're shipped out.  

 

My walkthrough was submitted back in September. Got it rather quickly but the label was wrong. Resubmitted for ME and now my so called walkthrough has been gone since October. They received on 11/07 and had been “Scheduled for grading” since. I was told to search for ME turnaround time and it has brought me to this forum. A walkthrough has been gone for more than a quarter of a year due to their quality control issues. 

I'm sorry to hear that. That sucks. 

Suggestion for CGC: When opening up ME's, identify any that are Walk Through or Express and get those processed and shipped back out within a week, or less from when they are opened. Writing WME or EME on the box could help CGC flag any such ME's for faster processing, but that could put such packages at a great risk of theft during transit.  Others with lower tier books (as is my current situation) might not like other ME's being pushed ahead of their books, but it seems like the fair thing to do, and hopefully there aren't that many Walk Through and Express ME's that it wouldn't slow down other ME's that much more. 

Heritage had a 5.0 Flash Comics #1 that sold for $192K as well (after a few near misses of the $100K barrier by some 1.5 to 2.0 copies in 2021 and 2022)

I'm in

Thanks for all you do, Mike, and Happy New Year!

On 12/27/2022 at 5:52 PM, Gaard said:

On 12/27/2022 at 4:02 PM, Superman2006 said:

Yay, my mechanical error submission now shows as Received / Scheduled for grading;

Shipped on 11/23/2022

Delivered to CGC on 11/29/2022

Received / Scheduled for Grading on 12/27/2022

OMG! A month? Remind me why are people instructed to write ME on the box?

So that it takes one month to show up as received, rather than three months or whatever : )

Seriously though, I hear what you're saying. Hopefully this delay is more of a one-off and not a sign of how long it will take in the future (and hopefully there will be less books requiring ME handling of course).

Yay, my mechanical error submission now shows as Received / Scheduled for grading;

Shipped on 11/23/2022

Delivered to CGC on 11/29/2022

Received / Scheduled for Grading on 12/27/2022

Thanks for the responses, and thanks for CGC Mike for chiming in.

My timeline is:

Shipped on 11/23/2022

Delivered to CGC on 11/29/2022

It has not yet registered on my CGC Submission Tracking page, 17 days after it was delivered to CGC.  Thankfully the CGC Submission page has a link where I can enter the tracking number to confirm that CGC has at least received my package, so my main concern was that CGC didn't pull it out of the pile based on the "ME" I wrote in thick sharpie on all sides of the box.

Based on Mike's response, I'm hopeful that it will show up on my CGC Submission Tracking page soon.

@CGC Mike Do you know about how many business days it is currently taking for ME's to be entered into the system?  If not no worries, I'll give it another couple weeks, and then follow up again.

Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays to Mike and others!

Has anyone else sent in a mechanical error for correction recently? If so, how long did it take to show up on your "CGC Submission Tracking" page?  

CGC received my package 3 to 4 (with big thick "ME" in sharpie on all sides) weeks ago but it still hasn't appeared on my CGC Submission Tracking page; just checking to see if that is the norm these days. Thanks : )

On 11/14/2022 at 12:18 PM, CGC Mike said:

1st place  @Yorick

2nd place  @WilliamLunt

3rd place  @TheGeneral

Congratulations to the 3 of you.  Also, thanks to everyone who participated.  

Congrats guys, and thanks again, Mike!

Thanks for all your work facilitating another awesome contest, Mike! 

With a 4 in that round, I'm optimistic that I'll be able to three-peat as a top 10 finisher. If so, I'll gladly take that result since they're the first three grading contests I've ever participated in (I just missed the deadline for signing up for the inaugural CGC contest).

On 11/3/2022 at 7:19 PM, THE_BEYONDER said:

On 11/3/2022 at 6:54 PM, Lightning55 said:

I've gotten them both ways, honeycomb corrugated or bubble wrap.  Never had any cases damaged on the tops with either method, always the bottom corners, if there is damage.

Not too fond of the honeycomb corrugated in general.  It has zero compression, no shock absorption, no cushioning effect, no give at all.  Whatever force is striking the outside of the box is transferred 100% to the plastic cases inside. 

I can't believe there aren't tons of damages reported.  Very lucky.

It’s absurd that CGC doesn’t use something that absorbs impact.  If they can’t figure out how to put an end to SCS, the least they could do is attempt to lessen the chance of its occurrence on shipments to their customers 

I know what you mean. The switch from the old CGC boxes which had some give on all sides, to the new boxes with honeycomb "padding" around all sides seems like a step in the wrong direction for preventing SCS. It would also seem like the new approach would use more cardboard than the old approach, which you would think would translate to a higher materials cost, assuming the same shipping materials distributer carried both types of shipping materials.