Kripsys99

Brings to mind the "first appearance" vs. "cameo" argument - if this is in fact the extent of the crossover in this issue.

Right you are! Hadn't even come across this one as a possibility.

This is such an underrated Neal Adams Batman cover. The more time goes by, the more it grows on me. Batman, the Batcave, THE Batmobile, Alfred, Robin's hanging costume, an awesome teaser text bubble - this cover has it all. And it's a significant issue too - arguably (inarguably in my opinion) the start of the Batman Bronze Age. People love 227 and 241. But after 221, I think this is maybe my favourite. Glad to see it getting some love lately.

I've got such a soft spot for Mile High - as a young collector in Canada in the 90s, they were one of the few places online where I could find every book I needed to fill out my runs. Their pricing and grading were fair, and they shipped to Canada! Upon rekindling my love of collecting a few years ago, I was sad to see what had become of their site and prices. Would definitely visit the store if I were ever in the area though.

Awesome. Thanks very much!

This question predates my particular era of collecting, but I'm curious when Batman and Superman first met in the comics? From my own very cursory search, I've come up with various potential answers, ranging from World's Best Comics #1 (1941), to Superman #76 (1952), to World's Finest Comics #71 (1954). I know it depends somewhat on how one defines crossover, and in this instance I mean when the two characters first participated in the same story. Thanks in advance!

Appreciate the tacit admission that CGC F'ed up, and the steps CGC is taking to rectify the issue moving forward. Still waiting for CGC to apologize for making such an egregious unforced error, for refusing to acknowledge the error for weeks, and for diminishing the faith that both myself and others now have in the grades assigned to our own comics. Maybe after a few more weeks of sustained pressure, CGC will deign to consider same. Or (more likely) CGC is content to simply say: "Let them eat qualified copies of the bootlegged books which kicked off this debacle to begin with, signed by the cover artist!!!"

"I'm Sorry" A message to the comic community from CGC Boards user Kripsys99 regarding "Apology Gate": "On behalf of both the CGC users who liked my original comment and myself, I would like to extend a sincere apology to the comic collecting community for my role in what has come to be termed 'Apology Gate.' To put it as simply as possible: I screwed up, and I'm sorry. When Matt Nelson rejected the possibility of CGC apologizing for encapsulating BF's limited release acetate cover variant of Ultimate Fallout #4, I saw an opportunity to bring something novel to CGC board members, while simultaneously cultivating some likes on my comment. However, I failed to think through the consequences of self producing a CGC apology as if it was a Matt Nelson produced apology, and the effect that would have on the CGC Boards community's confidence in this thread staying active. I should have thought it through, but I didn't. My apology, essentially being a "bootlegged" apology, should never have been posted to the CGC Boards in the first place, and certainly should not have been written in Matt Nelson's name without notations. In recognition of same, I will be removing the already submitted post from the boards, and offering likes to anyone who quotes the original comment with a personal insult included. I would also like to address the issue of my original comment receiving an inordinate number of likes. Most un-liked recent posts submitted to the CGC Boards are attributable to users showing support for CGC's bat-sheet insane decision to encapsulate a defaced comic in 9.9 and 10 Universal slabs. In the case of my fictional apology post, I both dumped on CGC, and pointed out their seeming PR incompetence. This resulted in a substantially higher number likes. I have never, and will never, log-in with alternate shill accounts to like my own comments - but under the circumstances, I can understand why some of you may have questioned same. I know that my handling of this matter has caused many on the CGC Boards - including many of my biggest supporters - to question my judgement, our posting model, and my integrity. I understand your concerns, and take them seriously. Please rest assured that I care as much about the integrity of protecting CGC's image in order to safeguard my investments in their products as you do, and that I will never allow something like this to happen again. In closing, I want to thank the CGC Boards community for caring enough about this issue, and me, to hold me to account for my role in this matter. I look forward to the opportunity to prove to all of you that I remain the preeminent poster on these boards, and that I remain worthy of being the gold standard for serious CGC boardies world-wide. Sincerely, Kripsys99"

Just to be clear, this is not the response CGC ACTUALLY provided, it's the one they SHOULD have provided in the first place. After reading this entire thread, I just got tired of the condescending breadcrumbs CGC was tossing down to us plebs justifying their highly questionable actions, and decided to fan-fic the apology I would have liked to have seen in the first place. Matt, if you decide to use this, I can PM you my address so you can send a cheque.

"We're Sorry" A message to the comic community from CGC President Matt Nelson regarding "Acetate Gate": "On behalf of both CGC and myself, I would like to extend a sincere apology to the comic collecting community for CGC's role in what has come to be termed 'Acetate Gate.' To put it as simply as possible: we screwed up, and we're sorry. When Black Flag approached us regarding the possibility of CGC grading and encapsulating their limited release acetate cover variant of Ultimate Fallout #4, we saw an opportunity to bring something novel to our customers, while simultaneously cultivating a new revenue stream for the company. However, we failed to think through the consequences of grading a dealer produced variant as if it was a publisher produced variant, and the effect that would have on the comic collecting community's confidence in our grading standards. We should have thought it through, but we didn't. The Black Flag variants, essentially being "bootlegged" copies, should never have been graded by CGC in the first place, and certainly should not have been given Universal grades without notations. In recognition of same, we will be removing already graded copies from the census, and offering refunds to anyone who sends the already encapsulated books back to us (the books themselves will be returned once cracked from their cases). I would also like to address the issue of BF variants receiving an inordinate number of 9.9 and 10 grades. Most grade deductions for modern comics submitted to CGC are attributable to imperfections in the outer cover. In the case of the BF variants, we assigned grades based on the acetate outer cover of the books. Acetate, being a more resilient medium than paper, resulted in a substantially higher number of the comics being graded 9.8, 9.9, and 10. CGC has never, and will never, "sell grades" - but under the circumstances, I can understand why some of you may have questioned same. We know that our handling of this matter has caused many in the comic collecting community - including many of our biggest supporters - to question our judgement, our business model, and our integrity. We understand your concerns, and take them seriously. Please rest assured that we care as much about the integrity of our grades as you do, and that we will never allow something like this to happen again. In closing, I want to thank the comic collecting community for caring enough about this issue, and our company, to hold us to account for our role in this matter. We look forward to the opportunity to prove to all of you that CGC remains the preeminent comic grading company, and that we remain worthy of being the gold standard for serious collectors world-wide. Sincerely, Matt" Just to be clear, this is not the response CGC ACTUALLY provided, it's the one they SHOULD have provided in the first place. After reading this entire thread, I just got tired of the condescending breadcrumbs CGC was tossing down to us plebs justifying their highly questionable actions, and decided to fan-fic the apology I would have liked to have seen in the first place. Matt, if you decide to use this, I can PM you my address so you can send a cheque.

Bronze Age Batman comics continue to hold value and/or climb. I've always felt they were extremely under-valued, even leaving aside the ridiculous valuations being given to B-tier and fringe-level Marvel characters/books. I think they'll buck the trend and continue to climb as speculators seeking to stick it out look for a semi-affordable safe harbor.

Thanks! Turns out CGC's shipping department simply failed to mark the book as shipped, so the certification number didn't get uploaded to their system.

Tried looking up a certification # (4035613001) of a book from a trusted seller in the verification tool tonight, and got no result. Never encountered this before. Wondering if this ever happens with genuine books? I've emailed CGC in the interim.

I love these books, but even I'll admit it's a bit of a mixed bag. There are some great one offs, and some great runs, that give us the likes of modern Joker, modern Two-Face, Ra's and Talia Al Ghul, and Man-Bat. You can't go wrong with the Denny O'Neil stories - the Frank Robbins stories, less so. That's just my opinion though. If you're interested in Adams' art in particular, you can always pick up the TPBs of his collected Bronze-Age Batman works, and only go for the stories which are of interest to you.

Not a huge fan myself. I get too much of a "Stanger Things" vibe from it.

Lots of great answers. Never considered the Overstreet Guide, or the fact that the "Bronze Age" only became the Bronze Age after sometime had passed (like how the Great War only became WW1 once there was a WW2). Thanks for the replies!

Agreed, that would be much better wording.

Idea for this topic spring from a discussion on a different thread the other day: Can anybody explain to me why CGC labels Batman #234 as the "1st Silver age appearance of Two-Face"? I know the definition of the various Ages of comics can vary by title, who you ask, etc. However, I can't really make sense of this one on any level. The book has an August 1971 publication date. That's after the publication of Green Lantern #76 (widely considered the launch point of the Bronze Age), after the publication of Batman #217 (which was published in 1969, and is considered by most to kick off Batman's Bronze run), and squarely within the years of 1970-1979 which CGC uses for its own registry. What am I missing here? Thanks.

Totally agree, but damn if this book isn't: a) tough to find in grade (thanks in no small part to the lower staple issue); and b) jumping in price fast - I WAY overbid on two 9.2 copies in two consecutive ComicLink auctions, just to get it into my collection. The first was the better copy, and went for over $1400, the second was (in my opinion) a lesser copy, and went for $1700!!! Needless to say, I didn't win either.

I only agree partly with this. While Batgirl, Poison Ivy, Ra's, Talia, Man-Bat (or someone like Darkseid in SPJO) and the lot may not rate alongside the likes of Wolverine, they rank a fair bit higher than a lot of Marvel first appearances which have gone for inflated prices the last few years. Also, characters like the Joker and Two-Face were completely reimagined - their "Silver Age" first appearances (after lengthy absences) may as well be first appearances, as the popularity of these characters today stems from their Silver/bronze appearances, not their Golden Age appearances. I whole heartedly agree about the likes of Bats 221, 222, 227, and 244 - but you get Spidey "2nd appearance of character X in a new costume" (sarcasm) counting as keys nowadays, so it seems that anything goes! P.S. - Love the Bats 251 pun.

Agreed, this is his best cover, and the value being imputed to the book recently is reflective of that. This is another book that is tough to get in grade. That said, Reece Comics has had a 9.6 for sale for $1200 for what seems like an eternity, and I can't believe it hasn't been snatched up yet (granted it's a weak 9.6, with CR/OW pages, but this book is tough to find!).

Yeah, that's the thing, even good quality raw books are exceedingly hard to come by.

Yeah, I meant to say the census doesn't show a tonne of these books in circulation, at least not compared to the similarly aged Marvel runs.