Skwerl

It doesn't look like Todd's current signature, but it looks exactly like a lot of the Todd signatures I got in 1992. Doesn't look suspect to me, and (now addressing OP) that red stamp is better than a COA for my money. Those who know know you have a copy that was bought day of release from Todd himself at his own store. As a collector I'd be more than happy to have one of those, even if it meant a green label. You've got a great book on your hands.

I recently acquired a very very nice copy of the Darker Image #1 Ashcan (Image, 1993). I've never seen one with the sticker unbroken, not even slabbed CGC 9.8s. The 9.8s I've seen have a note on the label that says "sticker opened." Which begs the question, will CGC need to break the sticker if I send it in, to grade it properly? Or would it not, and note on the label that the sticker is unbroken?

I have a Web of Spider-Man #90 still in a sealed Polybag. It definitely existed. But it's indistinguishable from one I have that was never polybagged (at least, as far as the cover goes, I can't say for sure what's inside). I'd like to know this too. I have a bunch of newsstand polybagged Spider-Man #1s I'm planning on sending into the McFarlane signing, and I'm thinking I'll remove them first (and of course add pressing), but I'd love to know for sure if there's any difference in what the label says based on whether I remove the polybag myself or if CGC does. I assume not, but I'm not sure.

All of this nonsense has just been stewing and stinking for the past couple days, but where I'm at now is I just don't understand how CGC can be so willing to make exceptions on this stuff, no matter what their reasoning is. Like, whatever sort of grading company you want to run, there's no escaping the fact that as much as we cry when our books come back shy of 9.8, we all want to know that the grades are earned, that the grading methods are strict, that there's absolutely no monkey business. When something like this abomination shows up at CGC, how in the multiverse does the decision wind up being to let it slide? Who wants to be the grading company known for letting dubious or suspicious things slide like this? No one picks CGC because they're the fun guys who grade wacky invisible comics. How is any amount of money from some bobo fly-by-night publisher like Black Flag worth a decision that isn't the conservative route? How is it not that every decision made by CGC errs on the side of caution? If you're extra strict on a weird book and/or give it a green label, well, you can always change your policy if it turns out you were wrong, and customers can resubmit for the upgrade. But why would you risk certifying something or giving it a high grade if there's even the slightest hint of impropriety? There's no way to get people do volunteer for downgrades, so you just become the company whose grades aren't always right. At the end of this timeline, CGC 9.9s are the new PGX 9.8s.

Of course I'm laughing my off, but it actually gives me hope that they're not necessarily going to die on the first hill they find, and may possibly change what they previously "stood behind."

I have long suspected this. My grading is pretty solid. 9 times out of 10, CGC gives my book exactly what I was calling it. And I generally write off the hordes of "CGC robbed me!" crybabies as just sore losers with bad grading skills. The exception is what happens above 9.4 though. I never grade a raw book higher than 9.6 (for so many reasons). I send apparently flawless books in for blue labels that mostly come back 9.6 with occasionally a few 9.8s. I send apparently flawless books in for SS labels that mostly come back 9.8 with only a few 9.6s. I hate to admit it, but it's encouraged me to send more books in to CGC signings than I might otherwise. I have had three possible theories here: A) This is just luck/coincidence, and possibly I just send more modern/newer/nicer books in for signings partly due to my personal critieria for what goes in for signings (often just cool covers that weren't as hard to find in the best possible shape). B) When a signed book goes to CCS, it gets special handling by pressers who have more experience, who can make sure that the cleaning/pressing doesn't mess with the signature, but who also might just do a better job than usual with the pressing. Or C) Certain types of super minor defects are forgiven to some extent when you have a book that has been, by definition, handled and written on. But I suppose there might also be D) CGC gives bias to their more profitable submissions. After acetategate, it's like... all bets are off, you know?

I mean... Holy hell. That's the whole damn ballgame, isn't it. Also, someone needs to get their hands on one of these 10.0s or 9.9s, crack it, resubmit it, and watch it get a 9.6.

At this point the impossible 10.0 and 9.9 scores on these books are more scandalous than the blue labels, but all of that is far more scandalous than anything at all Black Flag has done, or any of the influencer douches did, or how horrible the cover is, or any of that. CGC has burned into our consciousness that CGC 10s and CGC 9.9s aren't anything special. At best, they're 9.8s that were submitted by someone with clout. At worst, they might not even be 9.8s. Either way, with this move, they've revealed that those two grades were essentially cosmetic gimmicks that we have all been suckered into. The legal fantasy we should be discussing here isn't copyright infringement, but a class action lawsuit from customers. Where we could subpoena to get to the bottom of this pay for grade scam.

Something could be both. This is only one of those things though. So I would tell you that you're wrong.

Did you see the contract, or are you just talking out of your butt here? Nonsense. "Almost certainly" nothing. All depends on the contract/agreement. I would imagine there was at least some boilerplate to ensure that Marvel absolutely 100% has final say on what goes up on shelves, but I can't say for sure how ironclad that is without seeing the contract. But to say that the books are the property of the retailer in this context is laughably ignorant of how IP works. The books are Black Flag's to do whatever they want with, sure. But Black Flag's license to sell them surely has clearly defined parameters and boundaries.

I would agree except the comic (pre-acetate) was a licensed Black Flag exclusive. So it's not a question of copyright infringement, but more a matter of them violating the terms of a licensing agreement by making an unapproved modification. Same as if a toy manufacturer that had a license to make and sell Batman figures started selling versions with a gun instead of the batarang or something. that's not copyright infringement (like it would be if it was just some random toy company with no such license). But it should and hopefully will land them in hot water as a pretty blatant and stupid license violation.

Unfortunately I was made an expert in copyright infringement law back in 2008, and... no, nah. You can't say it "most certainly" is anything in this case. This would have to be settled in court. And the terms of the original agreement for these exclusives would have to be looked at. There seem to be legally valid arguments on either side. To a judge that doesn't know anything about comic books, it could be argued that Black Flag simply re-packaged something they had every right to sell. Now, that all said, I think there are no ethically valid arguments on Black Flag's side, and I would love to see them smacked real hard on both wrists for this, because it's bootlegging and it's bs and it's horrible and I'm not defending them at all on this. They can eat all the . But "derivative work" doesn't mean what you think it means. Marvel can surely send a C&D, because anyone can for anything, and they could sue Black Flag, because anyone can sue anyone for anything. But you can't say this is a clear cut case of criminal (as opposed to far murkier civil) copyright infringement when Black Flag did have an agreement to publish these comics. Then they modified them, which is probably/hopefully a violation of their license. But then that's not an infringement case.

Ah, right, not normally, no. That theoretical scenario was a generous fantasy, but it was a thought experiment basically; What if CGC did do a 9.9 pre-screen for Black Flag. And even then, for that many books to pass strains credulity, out of the entire print run even, and certainly out of 10 books.

Damn. I often defend CGC and I'm no conspiracy theorist, but this looks so much like pay for grades. That looks like a custom order for specific grades. I mean, if I'm being extremely generous, I might suppose it could be that they were given a huge pile of books with a 9.9 pre-screen. But even then, to wind up with exactly 10? And then to go 3 for 3, for exactly 30? (Edit: okay, there were some 9.8s so my math is dumb but still.) That's literally unbelievable. And if the entire print run was 750, I find it hard to believe that you'd even find that many 9.9s or 10.0s if CGC pre-screened literally the entire print run anyway. Especially since these weren't fresh off the presses; they were manhandled dead stock. This reeks.

Incidentally, while I vastly prefer CGC over CBCS for myriad reasons, CBCS nailed their position on this situation:

I would respect this if not for the fact that this acetate cover wasn't sanctioned by Marvel, i.e. it's a bootleg. And there are bootlegs of far higher quality (and even some with comparable "print" runs) that categorically get a green label because they're hack jobs. So no, you didn't treat this as you would any other variant, you treated it as you would any other official variant, and that's what's at issue. The Stray Dogs #1 acetate variant was done by Image, not some random dingbat goofballs. If I, as a comic book retailer no different in nature from Black Flag, decided to slap custom covers I came up with and printed at Sir Speedy onto a stack of Marvel comics without Marvel's knowledge, let alone their sanction, would those comics get a blue label from CGC? If so, then this is a huge change in policy for bootlegs, but either way, this isn't following precedent. It was an honest mistake, perhaps. But not in line with precedent. Anything added post-manufacturing by an entity that isn't the manufacturer/publisher is a hacked item. You can choose to not consider it a "defect," but if so, then it should be graded with qualification, as it is, by definition, a post-manufacture modification. "Manufacturing" need not be strictly defined as mechanical printing and binding; an extra cover manually attached, be it an acetate cover or paper cover or goat skin, or a rubber stamp, or a sticker, or handwritten scribbles or whatever else could theoretically be considered part of the "manufacturing process" if it's done/sanctioned by the publisher (or explicitly encouraged, as is the case with FCBD books with a huge area for retailer stamps), but no way if it's done by an unsanctioned third party. Because that could literally be anyone, doing anything. I hate that I'm writing so much about such an ugly book, but whatever.

Thank god because what the haha

Thanks!! This feels settled now. I bought a few copies of the book, and the outermost cover is very much obviously a protective flap. It's like tissue paper. I'll let CGC remove it. Oddly enough, some copies didn't have the flap and others did. I'll just send in the most perfect one with flap.

Hi there, I was directed to post this question in this forum: Will CGC remove this protective cover so the slab will display the sketch? Any way to avoid a green label here?

Hi there. I'm not really a noob, but I'm considering sending in a blank sketch cover for the Jon Bogdanove signing event, and I haven't ever done that before. I met Jon at ComicFest '93 in Philly when I was a little kid, and he did a Supes sketch on a backing board for me, that got lost somewhere along the way. I'd love to replace it, with a sketch on a blank comic. So I'm looking to pick up this version of Superman #1 (2018), but I see that it has a glossy blank flap over the "real" (blank) sketch cover. Will CGC remove that front flap when they grade and encapsulate it? Or should I? I don't want green on the label and I obviously don't want the sketch covered. And I want the Superman logo & issue number showing. Thanks in advance, and sorry if this was answered elsewhere! Couldn't find it in a search.

Thanks everyone! My expectations are set at 3.0. A little disappointed, but it looks like even 3.0s sell for a good price (given what I paid for this), so it's not the end of the world. Wish it made my decision easier though! I suppose now I'm leaning towards submitting it anyway, just because I feel like it would be easier to sell a well-presenting 3.0 at a 3.0 price, than try to sell it raw with weird damage called out that affects the value to an unclear degree. Just worried it will come back a 3.0 with some real scary note on the label like "bugs ate most of the pages" and then you won't be able to tell how much damage there actually is. The worst of both worlds, basically. But I'm feeling lucky-ish. I'll come back and post the results here when I get it back.

I've had this one for awhile, and I just don't know what to do with it. It presents FN-ish, but some kind of bugs or mites ate some ugly channels through some of the interior pages. The three outermost wraps are unaffected, but everything in between has, well, you'll see. Both staples are attached to all wraps, despite this. The cover is okay, but there's some chipping on the edge, and some staining on a corner or two. Since the cover looks better than the inside, I really want to slab it. But if it's going to come back lower than a 4.0, then I'd probably just keep it as a raw reader copy. I'd have it cleaned and pressed, but what do you think the best case scenario would be? Thanks in advance!

Yeah, I bought a graded 7.0 a little while after selling it. And man, this one's really been heating up lately. But it was always one of my favorite books. Honeslty, seeing that my buddy got a blue label and the grade I had called it was just a relief, and that outweighed any jealousy I had. I didn't want to gamble with it. He did, and I'm glad it worked out for him. I also have a weird thing where I prefer x.0 grades for my PC. I know it makes absolutely no sense, but I like the look of a 6.0 on the label over a 6.5, or a 7.0 over a 7.5. I've sold a couple 8.5 slabs to keep an 8.0 of the book for the PC. I know I'm insane, but at least it saves me some money and grief. If it came back an 8.0 though, yeah, I'd be a tiny bit salty, haha.

So, it's a year later, and we have an answer. I sold this to a buddy awhile back. I of course pointed out the stapling issue and my concerns. But he was cool with it, and sent it into CGC. Came back a 7.5 universal, with the extra staples noted on the label.

You know, I looked for those sorts of discrepancies with the staples, but holding the book in my hands and looking at the staples from all angles, the tines don't really seem like they're bent differently. And the oxidization isn't really much different. At least not in a way that supports either theory strongly; Sure, on the bottom set, the staple that goes through the cover looks a little suspect, but then on the top set, the staple that doesn't go through the cover is the one that looks slightly less oxidized, with slightly "looser" tines. Maybe I can take some more photos. I might send this to get graded but not slabbed.