bluechip

I bid against you on that one and lost. This was drawn at a time of much historic upheaval, sort of like the world today. And the reason it wasn't chosen for the published version is, if I have it right, that it was considered too effective in capturing the mood and the news of the day -- all things which, to me, make it more desirable than the final version. Despite Marvel's fervent fan base among politically astute readers of the day, there are barely a handful of covers made during the 60s that give even give a hint, all these decades later, that they were published in a time of cultural turbulence. I don't know the exact number of "timely" Marvel covers but this one, if published would've made it what, five instead of four? And about whether it's a "published final" or not, that argument always sounds ironic to me because Comic art is NOT the finished art that was published, when it doesn't have the colors that it was published with. A comic art line drawing cover is, at most, a part of a process in creating the final art. If it's a vintage piece, created in the process of making an iconic work (or even just during an iconic run) consists partly of original art under a stat which tweaks the original a bit, then how can that not be far more desirable than a published piece (which, again, to remind us all -- is itself an incomplete version of the final cover) which has only a stat of the original art because the original was on a separate board that was tossed or lost. That is so intuitive you would have to work very hard to find a person on the street who wouldn't think you're nuts if you suggested otherwise.

You can say that and make it sound logical or like that's-how-it-is but in fact there are many examples of sales that contradict your assertion. Many covers that sold in a form that was later altered before publication, and which did not sell for drastically lower prices. I recall a Cap cover (103?) that recently sold and it's NOT the final, yet iirc it went well into six figures. We also know that published covers with major areas being stats sell for less than those with all original art, and we also know that such covers DO sell for more when there is actual art underneath and the stat which made up the published version was simply shifted a bit or enlarged a bit, or whatever. I think another Cap cover 117, iirc featured a stat in the published version that was pasted over the original art, and I do not recall it selling for the huge discount your assertion it must have sold for. If it had I would probably have bought it, because I do not agree that such things are so much less desirable and would have been quite happy to discover that everybody else shared your view. But they just don't.

In other words, it isn't really difficult to do. Which makes me all the more surprised whenever a potentially major piece with a big stat piece of the main character got photographed and meticulously authenticated and described and its image printed in a major auction house catalogue, the whole proverbial nine yards, without anyone ever holding it up to a lamp to see what's under the stat.

I figure "whatever" is a nice setup for whatever this-for-that joke you might have. But once you get that out of your system, I would love to hear if anybody has either done, or looked into doing, an exchange of comics for something other than cash. I've heard of people giving things of value to universities and getting a break on tuition, but never verified any of those stories. And I've heard of people trading collectibles for other types of investments, such as homes or other property. But, again, no specific verified examples come to mind. Any thoughts, anecdotes, etc?

Several people used variations on the phrase "self-contained" and I agree that a piece of art on the wall is more interesting to me if it stands alone. Panel pages that contain a complete thought or sequence are also more interesting to me, in general. Covers and splash pages and pin-ups are designed specifically to be appreciated as self-contained pieces. And since they're comic books, created to contain both pictures and words, I consider an interesting use of words or blurbs or titles or even credits to be a plus.

I looked at the same original description and said "It's wrong. Just wrong." But -- I was concerned that if the conventional wisdom was wrong when I bought it, then it might stay wrong as long as I owned it and not be corrected until after I'd resold it (whenever that might be), when some new owner got it corrected. I don't follow art nearly as close as others do, so I am surprised when I see things listed at auction with crucial information missing or incorrect. Several silver age spidey pieces, which I tend to follow more than others, have shown up and sold for less than I would have bid had I known information that was not in the original listing. Like the ASM 97 listing which doesn't mention that all the stats have drawings underneath them, not just the one area that has an obvious stat over art. I find it odd that someone would own something like that and never investigate, leaving it for a wily dealer to discover.

Yeah. If I was the consignor I would've insisted on it being mentioned. I see that they did correct the original attributions to Don Heck. It struck me as possible but unlikely and no slight meant to Heck but I didn't see any signs of him in the piece and didn't fully understand why anybody would've thought so in the first place.

I was hoping the Marvel Tales cover would go under the radar and not many bidders would recognize the Spider-man figures as one of the most often used images in Spidey merchandising.

There's more comics fans in Russia than you might think, but less then there should be, considering how popular the MCU is there.

The chew pattern makes me think it could be from the "rat-a-tat" pedigree. Story has it a kitchen rat loved the way comics tasted but he also loved the art and story so he would only chew in the margins.

It looks as if Hitler is admiring V-Man's junk.

No question. It's impossible to disagree with that. My feeling has been that the label color focus makes things less transparent. How many labels have you seen in which the color of the label and the words on the label are exactly identical, yet you know that there is actually an enormous difference between what was "done" to one book as opposed to the other. And you know that one book looked pretty damm decent before the "work" (nearly the same as it looks post-resto at arm's length) while another was so destroyed and degraded that in its original state you could barely make out the figures on the cover. I totally get the idea behind wanting to put the latter book in a label that somehow conveys to the buyer "this book didn't look anything like this before it was restored and the cover might as well be called a 'painting'") But the problem is that rather than trying to identify the massively restored-you-would-never-have-bought-this-in-its-original-state books with a massive "don't buy this" label, we've ended up applying the same dammnation color coding to all sorts of books based not on what amount of alterations have occurred but based on what somebody thinks was going through the mind of the person who caused the alterations (or defects).

Re: the "color label focused world", I don't disagree it exists but I respectfully diverge from the notion that CGC should and must reinforce the color label focus, especially not if doing so means misusing words, going against common sense and embracing any abuses which result (I know you didn't advocate for the particulars in that underlined parenthetical, but they are, in fact, results of label color focus (or "obsession"?). Any efforts made to mitigate the underlined consequences is, in my view, a well-intentioned effort. And not just despite the possibility it will thus require people to read words more carefully. In fact, I would call that a good thing.

The terms "restored" and "conserved" are both consistent with the dictionary definitions and common usage for describing what was done. If the use of one of them as an "umbrella" term meant the word "married" was then omitted from the description, then I would agree it's misleading. I know some people complain about consistency but IMV if the words describing what was done and what it is are all there, and the "umbrella" term is not being used inconsistent with its dictionary definition, then there's no harm, unless some people want the "umbrella" term to carry some harsher implication that reflects their opinion about whether the book should have been, as they say, "manipulated" in that manner. And once you go in that direction there's always somebody who will not happy with how far you've gone. Some already feel it's not enough to say "married" unless you add the words "from another copy" and some feel that's not enough, either, that the umbrella term for the book must be understood to mean "good" or "bad". I've even heard it opined that some labels should imply or even say outright something like "color touched (and they shouldn't have done that!" or even "Buyer beware: this isn't worth much".

FYI here's a pic of the first page, which is one of those I kept. You can see the weathered edges and residual tape. It was even worse on the last pages, indicating this was coverless for years before it was taped and that many years elapsed after it was taped and trimmed. The white areas on all the pages had essentially the same level of whiteness (off white or so)

These look like pages I once had. The odd cut of that one page is something I remember. While some inner pages were nicer than others I don't think any of the pages were unusually "bright white" and I am sure if they had been it would've given me pause. I've had other "loose page" key stories and found it pretty easy to tell fakes from the real thing. Not sure if the picture makes them seem better than they are but I don't think if you saw them all together, as I had, you would've thought those pages were better to a strange degree. The pages were all essentially solid but some on the outside were chipped and brittle at the edges, mostly, from what I could tell, due to the glue from tape residue. I've seen many books over the years with old scotch tape on them, so I know when the tape has had decades to degrade to the point you could remove it easily without removing paper, and I saw the same on the pages from this book.

I actually had those in the past from a near complete coverless book obtained from an old time collector who seemed legit and had bought them several decades prior. Remnants of ancient scotch tape were on some edges but easily peeled off. Some outer pages had brittleness and inner pages seemed slightly better. Obviously the FFE pages are larger. There was a smaller sized reprint maybe 15 years ago but the paper is different. It felt and feels clear to me these are real but I can understand if somebody, even a grader, isn't sure at first.

earliest reprint from Superman 1?

solar powered generators should allow you to enjoy movies that depict a world that once was.

I was thinking solar power, portable greenhouses with a device that draws water from the air, and a lab for cloning meat. Oh, and lots of blu-rays.

I have always subscribed to a version of this, buying essentially at both ends. If I "just want" a copy of a book, and it's expensive, I get a low grade copy that has what I like about it. A few extra numerical notches in grade point for structural integrity that you may not even see if it's in a slab, don't make a book worth several times a similar copy with lesser technical integrity if it has all the stuff I like about it. (especially when structural integrity is given more weight then eye appeal). If on the other I am willing to pay more for one that's "special" I prefer it to be really, exceptionally nice and not just sorta nicer. But for me it can be unique and special in another way, aside from pure condition, like with a pedigree or provenance that I like for some reason. Like an Okajima with a Pacific War cover (which I mention specifically because I have no such books, so it's clear I am not making the point so I can hype something) Your other points I agree with is that the drop or rise in collectibles of all kinds will be tied somewhat to how much inflation plays a role in the future. And I believe that, barring a "Mad Max" sort of scenario, the best and most rare and desirable collectibles will generally deflate or inflate along with other things, such as real estate. If your Mile High Detective 27 drops 50% in value, I would guess that the price of some primo land and buildings will drop a similar amount. So, selling that book will enable you, roughly, to take the money and buy essentially the same things. Anyone who is focused on the value of their collectibles in a "Mad Max" style scenario is also, IMV, not looking at the bigger picture. In that scenario the value of your collectibles (or for that matter your stocks, your real estate, whatever) will be among the very least of your troubles. So if you're thinking the end times are coming, you should not be thinking Hey I'll sell my Superman 1 to buy some Berkshire Hathaway, you should be thinking of selling absolutely everything you have to "invest" in shotguns and bottled water.

Exactly like that. An interned Japanese girl buying comic books that feature superheroes fighting Imperial Japanese makes for the best pedigree "story" IMHO