TMNT #1 Club 19 19

[Hulksdaddy1]

Book is in its toddler stage. Kinda staggering around, going good, stumbling, going good again, etc. Most books went through this, we just didn't have the info available we have now.

 

I believe that TMNT1 is going to be that book that people say 10-15 years from now "I should have picked that book up when a 9.6 was less than $10k. Dagnabbit!"

[Icculus308win]

Doesn't help that I was searching C-Link with a misspelled "trutles"... sheesh.

Thanks man!

 

Been there

 

 

That reminds me again, I wish C-Link and other sites would link TMNT & Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles together upon searching. I have missed out on a two books in auction (both off C-Link within past two years) and one sale.

 

I just always assume (never assume, I know) when I type Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in the search field.....that it would also return TMNT labeled books.....not the case. I emailed C-Link a couple times now asking if they could link the two - but never heard back. I thought it might garnish more sales or higher sales for them upon linking the two?

 

Perhaps I'm the only one who has seen the negative side of not tying the two titles together......perhaps I'm the only insufficiently_thoughtful_person who just can't remember to search both titles:(

 

 

 

[Icculus308win]

Book is in its toddler stage. Kinda staggering around, going good, stumbling, going good again, etc. Most books went through this, we just didn't have the info available we have now.

 

I believe that TMNT1 is going to be that book that people say 10-15 years from now "I should have picked that book up when a 9.6 was less than $10k. Dagnabbit!"

 

Good points! Very good indeed.

[rich_TMNT]

Just checked highest sale was indeed from the first sale of a TMNT 9.8, $22,752 in 2011.

 

Yep, this one you are referencing...on Pedigree...it sold for $22K back in 2011 but that isn't really a first printing...it's clearly a third printing encased in a first printing slab. And I don't know that I ever heard what become of this issue...

 

Anyway, can we still consider this a valid sale of a first printing? I suppose one could argue yes because they thought they were buying a first printing and paid as if it were a first printing (which would be the argument I probably side with most).

[Hulksdaddy1]

Just checked highest sale was indeed from the first sale of a TMNT 9.8, $22,752 in 2011.

 

Yep, this one you are referencing...on Pedigree...it sold for $22K back in 2011 but that isn't really a first printing...it's clearly a third printing encased in a first printing slab. And I don't know that I ever heard what become of this issue...

 

Anyway, can we still consider this a valid sale of a first printing? I suppose one could argue yes because they thought they were buying a first printing and paid as if it were a first printing (which would be the argument I probably side with most).

 

The sale isn't valid, but the intent to buy was, so I'd say the pricing is valid.

 

 

[rich_TMNT]

 

The sale isn't valid, but the intent to buy was, so I'd say the pricing is valid.

 

 

Well-worded. ...and I agree.

[BarryAllen]

 

The sale isn't valid, but the intent to buy was, so I'd say the pricing is valid.

 

 

Well-worded. ...and I agree.

 

Sure, book has gone down and up since then (data is 5 years old).

 

9.8s are hard to come by these days. I have a 9.2 I have been looking to upgrade for months and no luck.

 

:shrug:

[rich_TMNT]

As prices keep going up and up over the years I'm more and more inclined to crack my 8.0, get it pressed, and resubmit it.

[Icculus308win]

Just checked highest sale was indeed from the first sale of a TMNT 9.8, $22,752 in 2011.

 

Yep, this one you are referencing...on Pedigree...it sold for $22K back in 2011 but that isn't really a first printing...it's clearly a third printing encased in a first printing slab. And I don't know that I ever heard what become of this issue...

 

Anyway, can we still consider this a valid sale of a first printing? I suppose one could argue yes because they thought they were buying a first printing and paid as if it were a first printing (which would be the argument I probably side with most).

 

The sale isn't valid, but the intent to buy was, so I'd say the pricing is valid.

 

 

 

That's right! I forgot about that book (the 3rd print/1st print one).

I did not realize that book was the record holder! (Wow......what did ever transpire with that book and CGC's press release?)

I agree with both your statements on the bidding/buying of the that book.

Personally, I had full intent on buying that book when I was bidding!

 

 

 

[rich_TMNT]

That's right! I forgot about that book (the 3rd print/1st print one).

I did not realize that book was the record holder! (Wow......what did ever transpire with that book and CGC's press release?)

 

I just asked that question on another thread...here was the answer.

[GM8]

As prices keep going up and up over the years I'm more and more inclined to crack my 8.0, get it pressed, and resubmit it.

 

So if you were to trust someone to press a high-value book like this, who would you use?

[rich_TMNT]

As prices keep going up and up over the years I'm more and more inclined to crack my 8.0, get it pressed, and resubmit it.

 

So if you were to trust someone to press a high-value book like this, who would you use?

 

Great question. I've not done it before but I've just heard of it being done...and increasing grades sometimes by a whole point. The only place I'd probably trust to do a TMNT #1 would be CCS.

[BarryAllen]

As prices keep going up and up over the years I'm more and more inclined to crack my 8.0, get it pressed, and resubmit it.

 

So if you were to trust someone to press a high-value book like this, who would you use?

 

Great question. I've not done it before but I've just heard of it being done...and increasing grades sometimes by a whole point. The only place I'd probably trust to do a TMNT #1 would be CCS.

 

C&{S through Joey is reliable.

So is Hero Restoration with Mike.

 

I have put books through both of them (including TMNT 1s) that are much higher value than a TMNT 1 8.0.

Edited February 24, 2016 by rfoiii

[Icculus308win]

That's right! I forgot about that book (the 3rd print/1st print one).

I did not realize that book was the record holder! (Wow......what did ever transpire with that book and CGC's press release?)

 

I just asked that question on another thread...here was the answer.

 

 

Wow!

Very cool that CGC stepped up!

Interesting that it has been MIA since 2013.

I wonder with Turtle movie hype around the corner again, would it come out of hiding to attempt once more?

 

(Thanks my man for shedding light on this book )

[rich_TMNT]

That's right! I forgot about that book (the 3rd print/1st print one).

I did not realize that book was the record holder! (Wow......what did ever transpire with that book and CGC's press release?)

 

I just asked that question on another thread...here was the answer.

 

 

Wow!

Very cool that CGC stepped up!

Interesting that it has been MIA since 2013.

I wonder with Turtle movie hype around the corner again, would it come out of hiding to attempt once more?

 

(Thanks my man for shedding light on this book )

 

It very well may turn up again. If it does, we'll be here to sound the alarm. I'd personally like to see the interior to determine how it passed as a first printing to see if any "shady" modifications were done to it.

 

You're very welcome.

[Icculus308win]

I wonder if CGC has any info on that.

Perhaps it was just overlooked, or it was just a bad coffee day.

[rich_TMNT]

I wonder if CGC has any info on that.

Perhaps it was just overlooked, or it was just a bad coffee day.

 

Honestly, with the Gobbledygook ad required to be on the inside back cover of a true first printing (and it's a totally different ad on the inside back cover of a third printing), I really can't see how CGC would miss this and truly believe this was a first printing. I mean, think about it...us Turtles collectors can identify this just by the cover differences and CGC's been able to spot counterfeits of #1's before. But a third printing gets by them as a first printing? Just doesn't sound feasible.

 

I personally think it has to be one of the two scenarios:

 

1) CGC didn't actually mis-grade / mis-identify the issue (they knew it was a third printing) but they made an error and omitted the "third printing" from the label. We all know that this happens from time to time with CGC. Then, someone tried to cash in on this instead of being honest.

 

2) Someone (not CGC) replaced the original #1 first printing inside the slab with a third printing to try and make some big ca$h.

[jaybuck43]

I wonder if CGC has any info on that.

Perhaps it was just overlooked, or it was just a bad coffee day.

 

Honestly, with the Gobbledygook ad required to be on the inside back cover of a true first printing (and it's a totally different ad on the inside back cover of a third printing), I really can't see how CGC would miss this and truly believe this was a first printing. I mean, think about it...us Turtles collectors can identify this just by the cover differences and CGC's been able to spot counterfeits of #1's before. But a third printing gets by them as a first printing? Just doesn't sound feasible.

 

I personally think it has to be one of the two scenarios:

 

1) CGC didn't actually mis-grade / mis-identify the issue (they knew it was a third printing) but they made an error and omitted the "third printing" from the label. We all know that this happens from time to time with CGC. Then, someone tried to cash in on this instead of being honest.

 

2) Someone (not CGC) replaced the original #1 first printing inside the slab with a third printing to try and make some big ca$h.

 

Personally I think scenario #1 is more likely. The only thing that does not make sense to me is why the book wasn't "destroyed". CGC made the pedigree buyer whole. So the question is, why didn't CGC get the book, crack it open, grade it and encapsulate it properly and resell it. Why did the book show back up in 2013?

[rich_TMNT]

Personally I think scenario #1 is more likely. The only thing that does not make sense to me is why the book wasn't "destroyed". CGC made the pedigree buyer whole. So the question is, why didn't CGC get the book, crack it open, grade it and encapsulate it properly and resell it. Why did the book show back up in 2013?

 

Yes, me too. Scenario #1 is definitely most plausible. I've never opened a CGC slab before but I'd imagine it's not an easy thing to do and then re-seal to pass off as unopened.

 

But, Scenario #1 doesn't make sense with the book getting back out there again 2 years later. I'm with you in wondering why CGC just didn't take the book back instead of leaving it out there. Seems it would open CGC up to yet another buyer who'd need to be "compensated" for buying it. Unless, CGC did take it back but someone "inside" did some shady stuff.

 

This is why I take high-res scans of EVERYTHING I send to CGC (both front, back, inside). Whatever would help prove that what I sent in didn't actually come back. TMNT #1 is a highly sought-after book...and there are too many similar copies out there that can substitute for someone that isn't paying attention.

[Icculus308win]

I wonder if CGC has any info on that.

Perhaps it was just overlooked, or it was just a bad coffee day.

 

Honestly, with the Gobbledygook ad required to be on the inside back cover of a true first printing (and it's a totally different ad on the inside back cover of a third printing), I really can't see how CGC would miss this and truly believe this was a first printing. I mean, think about it...us Turtles collectors can identify this just by the cover differences and CGC's been able to spot counterfeits of #1's before. But a third printing gets by them as a first printing? Just doesn't sound feasible.

 

I personally think it has to be one of the two scenarios:

 

1) CGC didn't actually mis-grade / mis-identify the issue (they knew it was a third printing) but they made an error and omitted the "third printing" from the label. We all know that this happens from time to time with CGC. Then, someone tried to cash in on this instead of being honest.

 

2) Someone (not CGC) replaced the original #1 first printing inside the slab with a third printing to try and make some big ca$h.

 

Personally I think scenario #1 is more likely. The only thing that does not make sense to me is why the book wasn't "destroyed". CGC made the pedigree buyer whole. So the question is, why didn't CGC get the book, crack it open, grade it and encapsulate it properly and resell it. Why did the book show back up in 2013?

 

EXACTLY

I thought since they did indeed totally reimburse/find the buyer a legit copy......that they in turn would at least put the CORRECT label in the slab, so they never would have to contend with that again. (Cost them some coin too) It really makes no sense. Should have been corrected by them before releasing back into the market.

 

CGC stepped up morally to find an actual 1st print 9.8, but ethically is something askew?

 

Edited February 24, 2016 by icculus308win