DATE STAMP ON FC OF THIS....

[THE_BEYONDER]

ASM 136, reduced it's "value" by about 50%

 

last 9.4 went for $200

 

Then again......maybe it was the scan.

 

 

[PovertyRow]

ASM 136, reduced it's "value" by about 50%

 

last 9.4 went for $200

 

Then again......maybe it was the scan.

 

 

I have to ask you - does that really qualify as a "scan"?

[rob_react]

The seller didn't put CGC in the title.

[THE_BEYONDER]

I never even noticed that.....

[Aces]

My scanner does CGC books like that.

 

Semi-transparent media is a no-no...

 

I have to get a digital camera I guess before I list any CGC books again.

[Phantom-migration]

"The seller didn't put CGC in the title."

 

Good catch. I didn't notice that either when I first looked at the auction. That, combined with the date stamp could certainly explain the much lower price.

 

And hi, everybody. I usually just read in these forums, but decided to join the other day and start to participate a bit.

[500Club]

The seller didn't put CGC in the title.

 

HUGE mistake....

 

I run through graded books using CGC as my search keyword. Somebody got a bargain, and the seller probably only had his auction seen by 50% of prospective buyers, if that.

[joe_collector]

ASM 136, reduced it's "value" by about 50%

 

No matter that the GA and SA fogies say, a Date Stamp on a Bronze CGC book is the kiss of death.

 

I saw that book, regardless of him not putting CGC in the title, and said "yeah right".

[rob_react]

It's definitely true about date stamps with the bronze age, but in this case, I'm pretty sure it was the lack of CGC in the title that did most of the bargain damage. A lot of that seller's auctions went for extreme bargain rates. To the tune of 1/3 to 1/4 value in some cases.

 

This 9.2, for example, sold for less than 9.4 Guide and 1/3 less than what the last 9.2 went for:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=70&item=2190651242