Finally a 9.8! Care to guess the price?

[COI]

Everyone's upset about that sticker, I'm disturbed that "Avengers #57" and "20K" are being used in the same sentence.

[paperheart]

Yeah, it's real classy and imagine in in 10-20 years....

 

 

[COI]

Is that hologram sticker in the upper right for real? Is the real sticker underneath that one or does that one replace it?

 

I am very surprised that CGC allows this type of BS, as the covering of anti-fraud holograms will ultimately hurt their brand and allow greater freedom with fake labels and other scams.

For once we agree. If CGC allowed that type of labeling then this is one of their more dumbassed ideas in a long time. As if those damned stickers ComicLink puts on the back of their slabs weren't bad enough. This fosters absolutely no desire for me to ever own a Rocky Mountain book. "Look at me, I'm Josh Nathanson."

 

I like the hologram. I also like the PCEI stickers on Pacific Coast books. They're both quite fetching.

The Pacific Coast stickers are different.

 

Why?

[DrWatson]

Is that hologram sticker in the upper right for real? Is the real sticker underneath that one or does that one replace it?

 

I am very surprised that CGC allows this type of BS, as the covering of anti-fraud holograms will ultimately hurt their brand and allow greater freedom with fake labels and other scams.

For once we agree. If CGC allowed that type of labeling then this is one of their more dumbassed ideas in a long time. As if those damned stickers ComicLink puts on the back of their slabs weren't bad enough. This fosters absolutely no desire for me to ever own a Rocky Mountain book. "Look at me, I'm Josh Nathanson."

 

I like the hologram. I also like the PCEI stickers on Pacific Coast books. They're both quite fetching.

The Pacific Coast stickers are different.

 

Why?

They don't say comiclink.com across the bottom, they aren't designed to look like the security hologram and they don't cover the CGC hologram.

[DiceX]

Is that hologram sticker in the upper right for real? Is the real sticker underneath that one or does that one replace it?

 

I am very surprised that CGC allows this type of BS, as the covering of anti-fraud holograms will ultimately hurt their brand and allow greater freedom with fake labels and other scams.

For once we agree. If CGC allowed that type of labeling then this is one of their more dumbassed ideas in a long time. As if those damned stickers ComicLink puts on the back of their slabs weren't bad enough. This fosters absolutely no desire for me to ever own a Rocky Mountain book. "Look at me, I'm Josh Nathanson."

 

I like the hologram. I also like the PCEI stickers on Pacific Coast books. They're both quite fetching.

The Pacific Coast stickers are different.

 

Why?

They don't say comiclink.com across the bottom, they aren't designed to look like the security hologram and they don't cover the CGC hologram.

 

Because PC stickers are only on old label slabs, and they're positioned in the space that the number grade is on the new slab. They can't put it there, so it can only be put over the hologram.

 

Unless they put it on top of that date stamp.

 

 

[DrWatson]

The slab has a back, hello...

[COI]

Is that hologram sticker in the upper right for real? Is the real sticker underneath that one or does that one replace it?

 

I am very surprised that CGC allows this type of BS, as the covering of anti-fraud holograms will ultimately hurt their brand and allow greater freedom with fake labels and other scams.

For once we agree. If CGC allowed that type of labeling then this is one of their more dumbassed ideas in a long time. As if those damned stickers ComicLink puts on the back of their slabs weren't bad enough. This fosters absolutely no desire for me to ever own a Rocky Mountain book. "Look at me, I'm Josh Nathanson."

 

I like the hologram. I also like the PCEI stickers on Pacific Coast books. They're both quite fetching.

The Pacific Coast stickers are different.

 

Why?

They don't say comiclink.com across the bottom, they aren't designed to look like the security hologram and they don't cover the CGC hologram.

 

Right, but the PC sticker has "Pacific Comic Exchange Inc." written on it. Both ways, it's a business putting their stamp on a book.

 

And what function does the hologram really play for security purposes? Intact corner posts and the cert. # are the only real security devices present on a slab.

[DrWatson]

The intent is different.

[COI]

The intent is different.

 

Josh has earned his ego. His powers are vast in scope, and include somehow getting people to bid ludicrous amounts in his auctions. He's a titan in his chosen profession and I admire that kind of thing.

[DrWatson]

The intent is different.

 

Josh has earned his ego. His powers are vast in scope, and include somehow getting people to bid ludicrous amounts in his auctions. He's a titan in his chosen profession and I admire that kind of thing.

Are telling me you have a thing for big dicks?

[COI]

The intent is different.

 

Josh has earned his ego. His powers are vast in scope, and include somehow getting people to bid ludicrous amounts in his auctions. He's a titan in his chosen profession and I admire that kind of thing.

Are telling me you have a thing for big dicks?

 

If I did, my hands would constantly be down my pants.

[DiceX]

 

 

[PovertyRow]

Just a general reply - would never reply ditrectly to Watson unless compelled to under pain of not replying.

 

It is a beautiful book. As Yoda would say "Date stamps like, do I." They are historic and aspects of a part of the books journey to the reader. Beyond that they can be definitive in determining the actual arrival date of a book to the public. Yeah, that stamp is certaily smudged up in the year. It loses some appeal for the date stamp lovers. Who knows? Maybe there is an interesting back story to that date stamp. Was the stamper hyped on too much caffeine or perhaps something else? The placement doesn't bother me. It is in a white area (just touching Vision). Not on top of Vision. Considering the colors on the cover - I think the placement is ok. Considering the drudgery of date stamping multiple book, I think the stamper made at least an effort to not go into any real art.

 

But date stamps ARE allowed in this grade. And while the 1968 is smudged, the rest is clear. And it is not a big date stamp, as are often seen, especially in GA books (which again I like).

 

People say "Buy the book not the label". Well, I say "Buy the book not the stamp."

 

But I DO agree - that "Rocky Mountain Comicslink.Com" sticker is on par with a home shopping tv show. And I also agree that it is NOT CGC's place to simply verify and announce a pedigree the way this was.

 

But the book itself? If it is as graded, with PQ as graded? What are we grading? A book or a date stamp? Beautifully centered. Sharp corners. What to hate in the book itself?

 

And to repeat - get the moronic Rocky Mountain Comicslink.Com off of it. The CGC label already SAYS Rocky Mountain. (For better or worse). And CGC should NOT be creating pedigrees.

[TempusFugitivus]

I've never understood why date stamps and distributor ink are not considered defects. Basically, mint means in it's untouched state, i.e. like it came off the printing press. Every copy with a date stamp and distributor ink went from the press to wherever it was being sold and some guy who had nothing to do with the original printing of the book either stamped it or splashed ink all over the edge. That seems like a defect to me, no questions asked.

 

That being said, a nice clean (un-smudged) date stamp on the back cover doesn't bother me at all.

 

I assume the book will go for well over 10k (and probably 20k) even with the crappy date stamp. Never under-estimate number madness. Whoever buys it will only be concerned with the number for their registry set and won't care at all about the date stamp or the fact that most of these rocky mountains' covers are kind of off-white and dingy.

 

On the other hand, that book does have a perfect wrap.

 

Another really odd thing in the Comiclink Auction is the Avengers 16 9.0 white. Its way the hell over guide and the next auction already has another 9.0 white AND a 9.4 white in it. I wonder if there is someone somewhere wishing they could retract their bid

 

 

[PovertyRow]

I've never understood why date stamps and distributor ink are not considered defects. Basically, mint means in it's untouched state, i.e. like it came off the printing press. Every copy with a date stamp and distributor ink went from the press to wherever it was being sold and some guy who had nothing to do with the original printing of the book either stamped it or splashed ink all over the edge. That seems like a defect to me, no questions asked.

 

 

I am not sure what you are using as a criteria for "mint means in it's untouched state, i.e. like it came off the printing press."

[TempusFugitivus]

The criteria I'm using would be the dictionary definition of mint, not the comic book grading definition. I've always thought the grading system was nuts. CGC grades, as far as I can tell, only on how flat, straight the edges, and undinged the book is. The color (whether the book is faded or dingy or it's pages are tanned all to ****) means nothing grade-wise. The wrap of the book (how off-center the cover is) means nothing grade-wise. They ignore date stamps (warts) and distributor ink (tumors).

 

As someone once said to me, it's like judging how beautiful a woman is by looking at how well her hair is done and the quality of the manicure on her fingers and toes.

 

I've always thought books should be graded more like diamonds: 1) color, 2) cut [the wrap], and clarity [how many dings, etc.]. I'm not sure what to do with the fourth C [Carat].

 

I've always thought that, if a company really wanted to compete with CGC, they would grade based on this. Every collector I know already subconsciously does it.

 

As for the Avengers 58. It's a beautiful copy: perfect wrap, undinged, but its color is not good on the cover (dingy) and it has a defect (ugly date stamp). I've seen copies I think should be graded higher in a perfect world.

[PovertyRow]

The criteria I'm using would be the dictionary definition of mint, not the comic book grading definition. I've always thought the grading system was nuts. CGC grades, as far as I can tell, only on how flat, straight the edges, and undinged the book is. The color (whether the book is faded or dingy or it's pages are tanned all to ****) means nothing grade-wise. The wrap of the book (how off-center the cover is) means nothing grade-wise. They ignore date stamps (warts) and distributor ink (tumors).

 

As someone once said to me, it's like judging how beautiful a woman is by looking at how well her hair is done and the quality of the manicure on her fingers and toes.

 

I've always thought books should be graded more like diamonds: 1) color, 2) cut [the wrap], and clarity [how many dings, etc.]. I'm not sure what to do with the fourth C [Carat].

 

I've always thought that, if a company really wanted to compete with CGC, they would grade based on this. Every collector I know already subconsciously does it.

 

As for the Avengers 58. It's a beautiful copy: perfect wrap, undinged, but its color is not good on the cover (dingy) and it has a defect (ugly date stamp). I've seen copies I think should be graded higher in a perfect world.

 

Well, unfortuantely your criteria does not jive with reality as far as comic books go. Consider grades such as "near mint" (9.4) or even "near mint minus" (9.2). How can one qualify "mint" like that based on your interpretation. Yet they are and have been for a long time before CGC.

 

I have said this here and elsewhere (including movie poster forums) for many years. I don't care what a grade is called. We could have grades Junkie, Not Too Bad, Pretty Good, Kind Of Nice, Nice Looking, Really Nice, Sweet, Droolingly Beautiful, Wonderous etc. As long as the underlying criteria those words represnt are applied consistently. And yes, CGC has not released their grading standard but what any given book would probably get from CGC is pretty much understood (as long as the defects have all been understood) by folks with experience.

 

Why question the word "Mint" - better understand what is possibly included in a 9.8.

 

Oh - and no way can you judge the real color of a book that is in a slab, scanned, then posted on the internet. I once had a 9.2 (Near Mint Minus) THING 16 pre-code horror I quickly removed from the CGC slab. The difference in depth of color was amazing. Looked way better in the mylar than in the slab.

 

[Aman619]

I think the sticker should be oversized and wrap around from front to back. That way ot would serve as a seal proving that the slab hadnt been opened. A way of ensuring that teh Pedigree book insie hasnt been touched. A nice extra touch to the free advertising on the sticker.

[namisgr]

Pay 11 bucks, get your damn RM books reholdered, and then you won't have to moan about the fugly C-Link sticker. Simple solution, no?

[DrWatson]

Just a general reply - would never reply ditrectly to Watson unless compelled to under pain of not replying.

I love you too, Michael

 

BTW... What does ditrectly mean?