My White Mountain Quest

[adamstrange]

Most WM's don't need paperwork as they are very identifiable from the cover markings.

 

Cover markings are less consistent than the splash page notation.

[Guardian Comics]

I know, I know but I'm not trying to give away all the info so people can start forging WM's :)

 

Jim

[Panzera]

Just out of curiosity does anyone know the history on the Amazing Spider-Man 1 White Mountain?

It wasn't always a 9.6.

[tth2]

Just out of curiosity does anyone know the history on the Amazing Spider-Man 1 White Mountain?

It wasn't always a 9.6.

[namisgr]

Just out of curiosity does anyone know the history on the Amazing Spider-Man 1 White Mountain?

It wasn't always a 9.6.

 

Well, it COULD be a simple case of a straight (i.e., no manipulation) regrade/upgrade. I believe that while CGC currently does not consider the penned year markings of the WM books to be a downgradable defect, they were pretty tough on arrival dates and such when first in business.

 

Or, alternatively...

[Panzera]

 

Here is my old pic.

 

 

[brasseye]

Just out of curiosity does anyone know the history on the Amazing Spider-Man 1 White Mountain?

It wasn't always a 9.6.

 

Well, it COULD be a simple case of a straight (i.e., no manipulation) regrade/upgrade. I believe that while CGC currently does not consider the penned year markings of the WM books to be a downgradable defect, they were pretty tough on arrival dates and such when first in business.

 

Or, alternatively...

 

I guess in this instance (with all WM's), it's the actual writing that is the historical and significant indicator of the ped. So it would seem odd on the face of it to mark books down because of it.

Albeit, it's also not a significant detractor...

[tth2]

Just out of curiosity does anyone know the history on the Amazing Spider-Man 1 White Mountain?

It wasn't always a 9.6.

 

Well, it COULD be a simple case of a straight (i.e., no manipulation) regrade/upgrade. I believe that while CGC currently does not consider the penned year markings of the WM books to be a downgradable defect, they were pretty tough on arrival dates and such when first in business.

 

Or, alternatively...

 

I guess in this instance (with all WM's), it's the actual writing that is the historical and significant indicator of the ped. So it would seem odd on the face of it to mark books down because of it.

Albeit, it's also not a significant detractor...

I seriously doubt that CGC downgraded the book because of the WM writing. The book looks really solid in the 9.4 slab, so maybe it was just a straight resub where CGC decided to be more lenient the second time around.

[Panzera]

Just out of curiosity does anyone know the history on the Amazing Spider-Man 1 White Mountain?

It wasn't always a 9.6.

 

Well, it COULD be a simple case of a straight (i.e., no manipulation) regrade/upgrade. I believe that while CGC currently does not consider the penned year markings of the WM books to be a downgradable defect, they were pretty tough on arrival dates and such when first in business.

 

Or, alternatively...

 

I guess in this instance (with all WM's), it's the actual writing that is the historical and significant indicator of the ped. So it would seem odd on the face of it to mark books down because of it.

Albeit, it's also not a significant detractor...

 

Any of the arrival stamps even if in grease pencils are not deducted.

[brasseye]

Here is my old pic.

 

 

Actually, after having a look at the larger scan on the clink, it still looks a 9.4 after all my blah to the contrary.

IMHO.

[namisgr]

Just out of curiosity does anyone know the history on the Amazing Spider-Man 1 White Mountain?

It wasn't always a 9.6.

 

Well, it COULD be a simple case of a straight (i.e., no manipulation) regrade/upgrade. I believe that while CGC currently does not consider the penned year markings of the WM books to be a downgradable defect, they were pretty tough on arrival dates and such when first in business.

 

Or, alternatively...

 

I guess in this instance (with all WM's), it's the actual writing that is the historical and significant indicator of the ped. So it would seem odd on the face of it to mark books down because of it.

Albeit, it's also not a significant detractor...

 

OK, so don't agree with me, but I think many of the earliest graded WMs (old blue label with the "arrival date on cover" notation) were moved down one grading unit for the cover writing. It is most certainly the case with the early Winnipegs, which have the oo signature as the historical indicator of the pedigree and appear to drop one CGC grading unit because of it.

[adamstrange]

Just out of curiosity does anyone know the history on the Amazing Spider-Man 1 White Mountain?

It wasn't always a 9.6.

 

Well, it COULD be a simple case of a straight (i.e., no manipulation) regrade/upgrade. I believe that while CGC currently does not consider the penned year markings of the WM books to be a downgradable defect, they were pretty tough on arrival dates and such when first in business.

 

Or, alternatively...

 

I guess in this instance (with all WM's), it's the actual writing that is the historical and significant indicator of the ped. So it would seem odd on the face of it to mark books down because of it.

Albeit, it's also not a significant detractor...

 

OK, so don't agree with me, but I think many of the earliest graded WMs (old blue label with the "arrival date on cover" notation) were moved down one grading unit for the cover writing. It is most certainly the case with the early Winnipegs, which have the oo signature as the historical indicator of the pedigree and appear to drop one CGC grading unit because of it.

 

At least on GA books there used to be a policy that the writing on the inside of the book by the OO could prevent a comic from being graded above 9.4 so it's possible that is what happened here. Too many variables to know for certain -- though someone could call for notes on the original slab in this case.

[r100comics]

OK, so don't agree with me, but I think many of the earliest graded WMs (old blue label with the "arrival date on cover" notation) were moved down one grading unit for the cover writing. It is most certainly the case with the early Winnipegs, which have the oo signature as the historical indicator of the pedigree and appear to drop one CGC grading unit because of it.

 

Hi Bob, you are correct. CGC do downgrade for writing on the cover, or interior cover. This is particularly the case where the writing has left an indent on the cover, which is viewed as a post-production structural flaw.

[tth2]

OK, so don't agree with me, but I think many of the earliest graded WMs (old blue label with the "arrival date on cover" notation) were moved down one grading unit for the cover writing. It is most certainly the case with the early Winnipegs, which have the oo signature as the historical indicator of the pedigree and appear to drop one CGC grading unit because of it.

 

Hi Bob, you are correct. CGC do downgrade for writing on the cover, or interior cover. This is particularly the case where the writing has left an indent on the cover, which is viewed as a post-production structural flaw.

If this is true, how is it that there are so many Church books with writing on the cover that have received 9.8s and 9.6s?

 

Does anyone know if the WM 9.6 JIM 83 and WM 9.6 TOS 39 have the typical WM writing on the cover? If so, are you guys saying they would`ve been 9.8s but for the writing?

[adamstrange]

OK, so don't agree with me, but I think many of the earliest graded WMs (old blue label with the "arrival date on cover" notation) were moved down one grading unit for the cover writing. It is most certainly the case with the early Winnipegs, which have the oo signature as the historical indicator of the pedigree and appear to drop one CGC grading unit because of it.

 

Hi Bob, you are correct. CGC do downgrade for writing on the cover, or interior cover. This is particularly the case where the writing has left an indent on the cover, which is viewed as a post-production structural flaw.

If this is true, how is it that there are so many Church books with writing on the cover that have received 9.8s and 9.6s?

 

Does anyone know if the WM 9.6 JIM 83 and WM 9.6 TOS 39 have the typical WM writing on the cover? If so, are you guys saying they would`ve been 9.8s but for the writing?

 

My response was a little more directed to the specific situation of WMs. There is a thought that the markings on the title page of the comic were done by the original owner. That is the type of marking that, at one time and may still be true today, in a GA comic would cause the book to not grade above 9.4. Original owner markings aren't treated exactly the same as distributor marks which can even appear on books with a 9.9.

[namisgr]

OK, so don't agree with me, but I think many of the earliest graded WMs (old blue label with the "arrival date on cover" notation) were moved down one grading unit for the cover writing. It is most certainly the case with the early Winnipegs, which have the oo signature as the historical indicator of the pedigree and appear to drop one CGC grading unit because of it.

 

Hi Bob, you are correct. CGC do downgrade for writing on the cover, or interior cover. This is particularly the case where the writing has left an indent on the cover, which is viewed as a post-production structural flaw.

If this is true, how is it that there are so many Church books with writing on the cover that have received 9.8s and 9.6s?

 

Does anyone know if the WM 9.6 JIM 83 and WM 9.6 TOS 39 have the typical WM writing on the cover? If so, are you guys saying they would`ve been 9.8s but for the writing?

 

C'mon, Tim, read my posts carefully. It is my belief that in the early days of CGC the WM books were graded a bit more harshly owing to the pen markings on cover and splash page. I believe this continues for the early Winnipeg books with the pen signatures on the cover, but no longer for the WM books, which now seem to me to be graded as if there are no cover or splash markings. If the WM JIM and TOS 9.6s you refer to were graded way back then, perhaps my belief is misplaced. On the other hand, these books were most probably graded at 9.6 in, say, 2003 or more recently.

 

I really think CGC may have modified things just a wee bit on the fly back when they first began. Does anyone remember that at first the graded books did not even have their page quality designated on the labels?

[tth2]

If the WM JIM and TOS 9.6s you refer to were graded way back then, perhaps my belief is misplaced. On the other hand, these books were most probably graded at 9.6 in, say, 2003 or more recently.

 

I really think CGC may have modified things just a wee bit on the fly back when they first began. Does anyone remember that at first the graded books did not even have their page quality designated on the labels?

I'm pretty sure both were graded fairly early on, definitely before 2003.

[tth2]

OK, so don't agree with me, but I think many of the earliest graded WMs (old blue label with the "arrival date on cover" notation) were moved down one grading unit for the cover writing. It is most certainly the case with the early Winnipegs, which have the oo signature as the historical indicator of the pedigree and appear to drop one CGC grading unit because of it.

 

Hi Bob, you are correct. CGC do downgrade for writing on the cover, or interior cover. This is particularly the case where the writing has left an indent on the cover, which is viewed as a post-production structural flaw.

If this is true, how is it that there are so many Church books with writing on the cover that have received 9.8s and 9.6s?

 

Does anyone know if the WM 9.6 JIM 83 and WM 9.6 TOS 39 have the typical WM writing on the cover? If so, are you guys saying they would`ve been 9.8s but for the writing?

 

My response was a little more directed to the specific situation of WMs. There is a thought that the markings on the title page of the comic were done by the original owner. That is the type of marking that, at one time and may still be true today, in a GA comic would cause the book to not grade above 9.4. Original owner markings aren't treated exactly the same as distributor marks which can even appear on books with a 9.9.

Good point. I forgot the writing on the Church books were not from Edgar but from the distributor.

[Guardian Comics]

I know people had suggested that I keep this thread going as I added new books to my quest so heres a little bump since the last time I posted in this thread.

 

From Donut, an obvious reading copy I know this is a secondary copy as a 9.2 slab of this book is out there somewhere.

 

 

From BigHulkFan who isn't on the boards very much lately.

 

 

Three books that arrived to me today courtesy of MCMiles.

 

 

 

 

The ST is qualified because someone replaced the staples but in hand I think it's my favourite book in my collection. Gorgeous.

 

The next few months are going to be crazy as some high end books are available for auction in the coming months plus a collector I know of is planning on selling me a lot of 40-50 WM books that he has acquired over the years. So if all goes according to plan, I hope to crack the 100 book plateau by the end of 2008.

 

Still waiting to get a really good key though ie ASM #14, Avengers #4 or a TTA #27

 

 

Thanks for looking and your interest,

 

Jim

 

 

[djpinkpanther67]

I know people had suggested that I keep this thread going as I added new books to my quest so heres a little bump since the last time I posted in this thread.

 

From Donut, an obvious reading copy I know this is a secondary copy as a 9.2 slab of this book is out there somewhere.

 

 

From BigHulkFan who isn't on the boards very much lately.

 

 

Three books that arrived to me today courtesy of MCMiles.

 

 

 

 

The ST is qualified because someone replaced the staples but in hand I think it's my favourite book in my collection. Gorgeous.

 

The next few months are going to be crazy as some high end books are available for auction in the coming months plus a collector I know of is planning on selling me a lot of 40-50 WM books that he has acquired over the years. So if all goes according to plan, I hope to crack the 100 book plateau by the end of 2008.

 

Still waiting to get a really good key though ie ASM #14, Avengers #4 or a TTA #27

 

 

Thanks for looking and your interest,

 

Jim