Manufactured Gold

[shadroch]

Not to defend Heritage,but I'm fairly sure Mastronet wouldn't have refunded on this book as well. They clearly state no refunds and say that they get the information out to the buyers in plenty of time to ask questions.

A few years ago,they listed a lot of books-Star Wars 1s in a way that made it seem like they were the rare 35 cent version.When the bidding got pretty high,I called and asked them about it. Turned out they weren't and the guy who bought them got stuck with them. He complained on another forum about Mastros refusal to even discuss the books with him.

Again,not defending Heritage,rather pointing out they might not be alone in refusing to give refunds.

[FFB]

And yes, I still think Heritage blew it on this one and probably should have ......

Twice now you've used the word "probably".

Is there something else that needs to be added before you make the step towards more Certainty?

 

Just curious about the wiggle room this allows.

And I don't want to infer that you are intentionally doing this either just curious if there was something

in the wording of the description which made you uncertain about liability.

 

It's not there for wiggle room. That's just how I wrote it. One of the first lessons a law student learns in school is to avoid absolutes -- and so I've developed this annoying habit of adding qualifiers into sentences here and there (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not). If I owned Heritage, I absolutely would have given him a refund. Whether he is entitled to one legally, morally, or on some other basis is somewhat open for debate given how obviously the back cover appears to be a copy, but purely from a "keeping the $2 million customer happy" perspective (or even from a "keeping the $2000 customer happy" perspective), I wouldn't have hesitated to send him back his money regardless since the text description didn't mention it and Filter says he wouldn't have bid on it if he had known.

[mica]

It's not there for wiggle room. That's just how I wrote it. One of the first lessons a law student learns in school is to avoid absolutes -- and so I've developed this annoying habit of adding qualifiers into sentences here and there (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not). If I owned Heritage, I absolutely would have given him a refund. Whether he is entitled to one legally, morally, or on some other basis is somewhat open for debate given how obviously the back cover appears to be a copy, but purely from a "keeping the $2 million customer happy" perspective (or even from a "keeping the $2000 customer happy" perspective), I wouldn't have hesitated to send him back his money regardless since the text description didn't mention it and Filter says he wouldn't have bid on it if he had known.

I thought it might be a habit. I knew of one lawyer that liked to use the word "reasonably" all the time.

[Bullet123]

Will one of our Photoshop specialists please put this book up with the front and back cover side by side so we can discuss it like rational adults.

 

I aint no steenking specialist, but I can host a photo!

 

 

Batman #1 (DC, 1940) Condition: FR. This is one of the most significant comics of all time thanks to the first appearances of Joker and Catwoman, the famous Dynamic Duo cover by Bob Kane and Jerry Robinson, and a host of other reasons; no wonder it's the sixth most valuable comic book of all according to Overstreet. The issue has a retelling of Batman's origin as well. This copy's pages are slightly brittle. The three centermost wraps have rice paper reinforcement. The interior pages have multiple staple holes through the spine (from additional staples added by the owner). We won't pretend there aren't nicer copies in existence, but the catch is that you have to be Bruce Wayne to afford most of 'em. This is a great chance to snag an affordable copy of this legendary book. Overstreet 2005 GD 2.0 value = $7,179.

 

 

Filter, I agree that you had an argument with Heritage because they did not describe the xeroxed cover, but to say that you could not tell that back cover was dramaticly different than the front cover and the rest of the book and that the best that you could have hoped for was a married cover and even then I would still have thought to ask the question before bidding.

[batman_fan]

Lou_fine can say what he wants, but I know for a fact that NDP was going on to a significant degree before CGC.

 

Says who? And could you be more specific on what passed for "significant" compared to the NDP activities going on today?

 

Jim

 

So say "my sources."

 

Again, almost three years ago people here, some very veteran collectors/dealers and knowledgeable on the going ons in the hobby, were dismissing the extent of pressing in the hobby. Now you are saying that pressing was happening to a significant degree pre-CGC according to your sources...

 

Maybe your sources are overstating things "significantly"...

 

Jim

 

And maybe you're choosing to believe what you want to believe because you think it supports your world view.

 

Regardless, without videotaped evidence, Batman_fan is just going to call this NO PROOF anyway, so it's pointless to argue about it. I believe that there was NDP pressing to a significant degree before CGC because I've spoken to people who told me they did it (not on cheap books like now, but on more expensive books). You don't believe that. We can still coexist despite our different beliefs.

 

Once again, you misrepresent what I said. Good work! Are you a lawyer.

[batman_fan]

As a side note, I know a dealer that was pressing stuff back in the 1988-1990 time frame. Had a press in the back room. Also had a machine for re-shrink wrapping toys fot that minty "fresh in the box" look.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Why are you guys letting the Heritage apologists derail this thread? They must be loving the fact that the sole focus is now upon whether or not Filter should have "known better".

 

Who cares?

 

It's an intentional distraction.....and it's working.

[FFB]

Why are you guys letting the Heritage apologists derail this thread? They must be loving the fact that the sole focus is now upon whether or not Filter should have "known better".

 

Who cares?

 

It's an intentional distraction.....and it's working.

 

It is not intentional distraction, jerk. It's a tangent that people wanted to talk about. Quit whining.

 

Actually, I may as well tell you to quit breathing. Nevermind, carry on.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Why are you guys letting the Heritage apologists derail this thread? They must be loving the fact that the sole focus is now upon whether or not Filter should have "known better".

 

Who cares?

 

It's an intentional distraction.....and it's working.

 

It is not intentional distraction, jerk. It's a tangent that people wanted to talk about. Quit whining.

 

Actually, I may as well tell you to quit breathing. Nevermind, carry on.

 

"Jerk"?

 

 

Strike a nerve or something?

[MasterChief]

This next example does not exhibit manipulation on the scale that some may have demonstrated previously. On the contrary. The work this particular specimen portrays, in my opinion, is of a subtle nature.

 

Nonetheless, it is offered here for that very reason, in addition to something else that I personally find rather interesting. That being: the relationship it holds to another book that has seen recent public discourse.

 

***************

 

Master Comics # 22

 

Originally sold in the summer of 2005 as a VF+ copy, this desirable Golden Age issue saw strong interest and sold for an amount just under the fair market value of a higher-graded VF/NM counterpart.

 

Following its initial public sale, and in the span of 25 working days, the 8.5 Fawcett was treated, graded, and re-encapsulated as a 9.2 copy – thus moving into its current 2nd place position on the CGC census.

 

The book was auctioned again at the beginning of 2006, but this time it met with reduced interest. Even so, the copy achieved a price $2,500 more than its original take.

 

The newer version of Master Comics #22 (0717287002) was graded on September 19, 2005. It carries a subsequent serial number to that of the altered version of Sensation Comics #1 (0717287001) Crowley Copy. As far as I have been able to ascertain, no other book is serialized following this numbered sequence. The older version of Master Comics #22 is not searchable in the CS database.

 

After conducting an studied examination of the high-resolution images, I believe the copy was slightly treated by a combination of cleaning and pressing technique. The soiling, which was predominantly visible on the rear cover surface area, shows of minor cleaning improvement. While the easing in the appearance of both a lower-left edge crease and a slightly blunt corner may have been produced by pressing.

 

Certification/Resale Provenance:

 

 

Resource Links:

 

Are these the same book?

Master Comics #22 (8.5)

Master Comics #22 (9.2)

 

Images:

 

 

 

 

[FFB]

Why are you guys letting the Heritage apologists derail this thread? They must be loving the fact that the sole focus is now upon whether or not Filter should have "known better".

 

Who cares?

 

It's an intentional distraction.....and it's working.

 

It is not intentional distraction, jerk. It's a tangent that people wanted to talk about. Quit whining.

 

Actually, I may as well tell you to quit breathing. Nevermind, carry on.

 

"Jerk"?

 

 

Strike a nerve or something?

 

MAYBE!!! So what?

[esquirecomics]

The newer version of Master Comics #22 (0717287002) was graded on September 19, 2005. It carries a subsequent serial number to that of the altered version of Sensation Comics #1 (0717287001) Crowley Copy. As far as I have been able to ascertain, no other book is serialized following this numbered sequence. The older version of Master Comics #22 is not searchable in the CS database.

 

Nice work, yet again!

 

Now this is getting interesting given the sequential serial numbers. The Sensation #1 was the Halperin/Lewis book we were discussing, yes?

[shadroch]

Aside from Halperin claiming it was his,do we really know that to be true?Anyone seen any documantation that supports his claim?

[esquirecomics]

Aside from Halperin claiming it was his,do we really know that to be true?Anyone seen any documantation that supports his claim?

 

That's true. We should probably forgo discussing this further.

[tth2]

I'm not so much surprised that there are people that continue to do a lot of business with Heritage, just surprised they would admit it

Yeah, I'd hate to be labeled as "not cool" by all the cool, cynical, negative-about-everything in-crowd.

 

and defend Heritage with such zeal.

I'm sorry that you can't seem to get past the particular facts here and recognize the underlying principles involved.

[tth2]

And maybe you're choosing to believe what you want to believe because you think it supports your world view.

 

Regardless, without videotaped evidence, Batman_fan is just going to call this NO PROOF anyway, so it's pointless to argue about it. I believe that there was NDP pressing to a significant degree before CGC because I've spoken to people who told me they did it (not on cheap books like now, but on more expensive books). You don't believe that. We can still coexist despite our different beliefs.

 

Oh...I believe it was going on...but only at a fraction of the degree or quantities we are seeing now...

 

Jim

 

Yeah, you're probably right about that. There are more people doing it now and they're doing it to cheaper books. It used to be reserved mostly (but not exclusively) for the world's finest comics, where the value of the books justified the work.

I think many people would say that pressing of those world's finest comics was probably the least of their issues with those comics.

[THE_BEYONDER]

I'm not so much surprised that there are people that continue to do a lot of business with Heritage, just surprised they would admit it

Yeah, I'd hate to be labeled as "not cool" by all the cool, cynical, negative-about-everything in-crowd.

 

and defend Heritage with such zeal.

I'm sorry that you can't seem to get past the particular facts here and recognize the underlying principles involved.

 

Principles?

 

C'mon. If you had absolutely no 'stake' in this, you wouldn't be saying a word right now.

 

Disclaimer: The above is merely my delusional opinion, and not to be interpreted as fact

[tth2]

Nobody could be arsed on anything other than big ticket items back then

I assume you're just talking about pressing, because there were many people back then who were very clearly willing to do other forms of resto, most notably color touch, on small ticket items.

[shadroch]

I'm not so much surprised that there are people that continue to do a lot of business with Heritage, just surprised they would admit it

Yeah, I'd hate to be labeled as "not cool" by all the cool, cynical, negative-about-everything in-crowd.

 

and defend Heritage with such zeal.

I'm sorry that you can't seem to get past the particular facts here and recognize the underlying principles involved.

 

I'm sorry you can't seem to understand that there is something very,very wrong with the hobby we all love and time after time,Heritage and CGC seem to be right smack in the middle of every such episode.

[tth2]

I looked again at the Heritage lot. I'll just add that IMO, after looking at that horrible front cover-- if one were STILL considering buying it, does it really matter aboiut th eback cover? In terms of scrutinizing it? Id read the description to see what kind of resto it had and be done.

 

So, for the record, I agree with Filter that NOT mentioning the Xerox back cover was a huge oversight by Heritage. If it were "so obvious" as others have mentioned here, then it was obvious to Heritage. And in my experience a wxerox back cover IS somtehing that needs to be listed in descriptions. Its not all that common, and its not part of the book! Its a replaced page... usually noted as "pieces added". Here is was a whopper of a piece!

For what it's worth, I too thought it was inexcusable (and actionable) for Heritage not to mention this in the description. Hence my urging Filter to take action. But I accept his explanation of why he didn't (although I don't think it would have ever gotten to real legal fees, as an initial letter from a law firm is probably all it would've taken ).