Supes #61 CGC 9.0 in CLink a resub?

[VintageComics]

You yourself have a business where you buy and sell comic books at a profit. By your rationale, should we all hope to see you fail and lose money?

 

The correct answer is "Only if he doesn't sell me a book I want".

 

[nearmint]

Personally, I'm more annoyed with the kid that folds a comic in half and sticks it in his back pocket while playing stickball, or the Dad that uses his son's comic as a coaster for his coffee, than I am with someone who has a book pressed.

 

Some call the two former examples "the natural progression" of a comic's life, while the latter is an "artificial manipulation" to accentuate the grade of a comic. To me, it's simpler. The former examples detract from the appearance of the book, while the latter improves it.

[buttock]

The reason it didn't is that the book had just previously been a purple label CGC 6.5 (slight glue) which had not met reserve at Heritage. The glue (or tape residue according to Mark Wilson who discovered the Rockford collection) was removed and the book was resubmitted to CGC without any evidence of the pedigree nature of the book to purposefully hide the manipulation of removed restoration (I should note I have no problems with the removal of restoration so long as disclosed).

 

Thanks, Mark. I always wondered what was meant by slight glue but I never connected it to tape residue on the comic.

 

To clarify, don't take this as an accurate representation of "slight glue". "Slight glue" often reflects a dot or two of glue applied inside the spine - most often at the tips, but sometimes at the staples - intended to ensure the cover remained well-attached to the book. The case Mark is talking about is an exception.

[clarkkentdds]

If it is just a straight resub (which I doubt) I still think it's unfortunate that the provenance was lost in translation...

 

I have tried to keep most of the nicest Williamsports together, but this kind of thing makes it harder to trace collections/ pedigrees as their identities are wiped off by resubmits/ altered books.

 

[nearmint]

I just don't buy it. I don't see any pressable defects in the 8.5 copy.

 

Some people, unfortunately, aren't as careful about maintaining "collection" designations as they might be with a pedigree designation. CGC doesn't note it on the label, which makes it easy to overlook. I'm guilty of this myself. I picked up the Williamsport Supes #9 in an auction just 3-4 months ago, and had completely forgotten that it was the Williamsport copy until just the other day when I saw it in the Heritage archive, and my memory was sparked.

[MrBedrock]

That shadow is a fingerprint. If a hobbyist can see this, why can't CGC pick up on this? CGC needs to do a better job at detecting alterations.

Of course CGC can pick up resubmissions in a lot of cases. There've been a ton of cracked and resubbed pedigree books with distinguishing features, where the CGC guys probably knew they'd seen the book before, even without checking back into their archives.

 

But their business model is that they don't care and will treat every new submission as a new submission, even if it makes a mockery of the sanctity of the whole grading and certification process.

 

What's really sad is that the slimebags playing the crack and resub game will sometimes hide the pedigreed nature of a book, so when CGC reslabs the book, the pedigree won't be noted anymore. I guess the slimebags are worried that CGC will not give the book a higher grade if they know they previously gave it a lower grade, even though all the evidence indicates that CGC don't care and will give a higher grade even when they definitely know they've graded it before.

I got to tell you..."it makes a mockery of the sanctity of the whole grading and certification process"...Now that is an awesome statement. I now have an enlightened new vision of CGC and the miracles they perform on a daily basis!

 

Honestly, if Jack Juka is upset about leaving some money on the table maybe he should tell us all about it. He posts here. He was certainly aware of the possibility that his books could be pressed(if indeed that is what happened).

 

As for the "slimebags" who perpetrated this indecency on the collecting public...that sure is a nice 9.0 Superman 61 you have there. Good luck with the sale.

 

Oh, and one other thing...Hey Esquire, or Mark Zaid. Sorry that mean ol' Steve Lauterbach took advantage of you like that.

I can definitely see why you hate having that 5.5 More Fun 52 in your collection.

[Straw-Man]

How do we know that the book was altered? We're talking about a .5 difference. Entirely possible that this book was merely resubbed.

 

I think it's unfair to the current owner to "scarlet letter" the book without knowing for sure that some manipulation has occurred.

 

exactly. this thread has all the markings of yet another tired litany on the evils of pressing. please keep that krap over in general.

[50YrsCollctngCmcs]

I am not a CGC collector, yet some interesting statements have been made here that I would like those who do collect high grade CGC to proffer an opinion about.

 

Someone stated that they have seen a 1 point discrepancy in CGC grades. Does that 1 point discrepancy seem more prevalent in a certain grade range (say 6.0 to 8.0) than in a higher grade range?

 

With the increasing multiples paid for grades above 9.0; 9.2; 9.4 etc. Do you really feel you can tell the difference in those grades to justify the rapidly increasing price?

 

Conversely, are you confident enough in the grading process to believe that an untouched unslabbed high grade book (say 9.4) would receive the same grade on re-submission?

 

I ask these questions as I have been thinking of starting to buy CGC books as the best check against restoration. Many of you have a great deal of experience with buying these books and I would value your opinion on these issues.

[markseifert]

eventually, someone's going to attempt to subject the process to a test: put together a test group of gold, silver, bronze, copper, and modern books. Keep the books off the market and resubmit them a number of times over the course of 2-3 years, and record and publish the results. That would be interesting.

[buttock]

Someone stated that they have seen a 1 point discrepancy in CGC grades. Does that 1 point discrepancy seem more prevalent in a certain grade range (say 6.0 to 8.0) than in a higher grade range?

 

Can't say. Anecdotally, I feel that I tend to disagree more with the grade on GA books as the grade gets higher, but I don't know about resubmissions.

 

With the increasing multiples paid for grades above 9.0; 9.2; 9.4 etc. Do you really feel you can tell the difference in those grades to justify the rapidly increasing price?

 

No. Fortunately, with GA books it seems that the ridiculous multiples don't apply as much.

 

Conversely, are you confident enough in the grading process to believe that an untouched unslabbed high grade book (say 9.4) would receive the same grade on re-submission?

 

No. And since I crack almost all of my slabs, I often don't feel comfortable buying slabs I can't see in person. Most often, I'd rather buy raw and in person.

 

 

[esquirecomics]

That shadow is a fingerprint. If a hobbyist can see this, why can't CGC pick up on this? CGC needs to do a better job at detecting alterations.

Of course CGC can pick up resubmissions in a lot of cases. There've been a ton of cracked and resubbed pedigree books with distinguishing features, where the CGC guys probably knew they'd seen the book before, even without checking back into their archives.

 

But their business model is that they don't care and will treat every new submission as a new submission, even if it makes a mockery of the sanctity of the whole grading and certification process.

 

What's really sad is that the slimebags playing the crack and resub game will sometimes hide the pedigreed nature of a book, so when CGC reslabs the book, the pedigree won't be noted anymore. I guess the slimebags are worried that CGC will not give the book a higher grade if they know they previously gave it a lower grade, even though all the evidence indicates that CGC don't care and will give a higher grade even when they definitely know they've graded it before.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with Tim. (thumbs u

 

And it allows me to remind everyone of a previous example of exactly what Tim is referring to.

 

I own the Rockford copy of More Fun #52 CGC 5.5. I purchased it from Steve Lauterbach. The book I purchased did not note on the label that it was the Rockford pedigree copy (and also from Nicholas Cage's collection). The reason it didn't is that the book had just previously been a purple label CGC 6.5 (slight glue) which had not met reserve at Heritage. The glue (or tape residue according to Mark Wilson who discovered the Rockford collection) was removed and the book was resubmitted to CGC without any evidence of the pedigree nature of the book to purposefully hide the manipulation of removed restoration (I should note I have no problems with the removal of restoration so long as disclosed).

 

Lauterbach conveniently did not tell me of what had transpired before the purchase but fortunately ComicKeys, of all people, exposed the alteration and at least I ultimately did purchase the book knowing what had occurred, no thanks to Mr. Lauterbach. I subsequently had the book resubmitted so that the pedigree designation could be "restored".

 

A more recent example is the Kansas City copy of Tough Kid Squad (Timely, 1942). It was a CGC 8.5 and failed to meet reserve at Heritage earlier this year. NOW it is a CGC 8.0 and I purchased it last week for under guide. At least in this case the "slimebag", as Tim described the person who partakes in the resub practice, suffered a nice loss. I'd love to know who the person was who risked resubmitting a pedigree book (I have no idea if it was pressed).

 

Yet another example is the All American #1 CGC 8.0 Larson copy I own. It was previously a CGC 8.5. Again, at least I can take pleasure in knowing that the resubmitter hopefully took a hit by the gamble.

 

It is unfortunate that CGC's business model supports, if not encourages, this type of resub practice. I really view it as Tim does that the practice hurts the integrity of CGC's grading skills and in the long term may come back to haunt them as collectors view the inconsistencies.

 

Mark, do you really feel this way?

 

People are taking a chance at making a profit on a book. There's no proof that anything was done to the books (and if there was, it's likely of no consequence). And you see something wrong with this? You take delight in seeing this go awry?

 

This is a basic principle of capitalism. You yourself have a business where you buy and sell comic books at a profit. By your rationale, should we all hope to see you fail and lose money?

 

Whether someone agrees with my expressed belief will depend on how they view the comic book collecting/buying process and the role CGC plays.

 

Personally, I believe that any instance that reveals the flaws in CGC's grading negatively impacts on anyone who sells or trades CGC books because it calls into question the sanctity or integrity of CGC's consistency. The more inconsistent CGC's grading is interpreted the less influence that grade will have. This may not be a short term issue, but over a period of time I personally believe it will negatively impact CGC. We all see people on these boards call into question the ups and downs of the grading of certain dealers and because of those "criticisms" some collectors avoid that dealer.

 

So the way I see it the person who resubs a book (and you are correct I am not even addressing some sort of additional manipulation, whether that be pressing or restoration removal; it can be nothing more than a straight resub), is potentially impacting my business in a negative way b/c I primarily try to sell CGC books.

 

Now, that said, if one believes strictly in the capitalist theory of make money wherever and however you can and come the spoils to the victors, that person won't agree with my belief. And I'm not saying that anything is wrong with that difference of opinion. Just my opinion. I'm sure some share it, as is obvious from just reading this thread, and others will not.

[esquirecomics]

The reason it didn't is that the book had just previously been a purple label CGC 6.5 (slight glue) which had not met reserve at Heritage. The glue (or tape residue according to Mark Wilson who discovered the Rockford collection) was removed and the book was resubmitted to CGC without any evidence of the pedigree nature of the book to purposefully hide the manipulation of removed restoration (I should note I have no problems with the removal of restoration so long as disclosed).

 

Thanks, Mark. I always wondered what was meant by slight glue but I never connected it to tape residue on the comic.

 

To clarify, don't take this as an accurate representation of "slight glue". "Slight glue" often reflects a dot or two of glue applied inside the spine - most often at the tips, but sometimes at the staples - intended to ensure the cover remained well-attached to the book. The case Mark is talking about is an exception.

 

What I meant by my statement is that Mark Wilson, who discovered the Rockford pedigree collection, doesn't believe it was glue in the first place. It was his recollection that the owner of the collection sometimes placed scotch tape over the staples in order to protect that area from future problems, i.e., there was no need for the tape at that time.

 

Mark's opinion was that the "glue" was actually residue from 60+ year old tape that had eroded over the decades.

[esquirecomics]

Oh, and one other thing...Hey Esquire, or Mark Zaid. Sorry that mean ol' Steve Lauterbach took advantage of you like that.

I can definitely see why you hate having that 5.5 More Fun 52 in your collection.

 

I don't believe I ever wrote or have said to anyone that Lauterbach took advantage of me Mr. Bedrock or is it Richard Evans.

 

In fact, I specifically said I bought the book with full knowledge of it's history but that Lauterbach had tried to hide it from me. Indeed, his actions worked to my benefit because I bought a book at a price under its value and the book has significantly increased in value since that time as well.

 

The point of my recitation was to highlight the resub game and more importantly that this profit-making enterprise is leading to the historical destruction of many important pedigree books. The MF #52 is but just one example that has been identified over the last few years where the identification of an historical book was almost lost.

 

I would have thought given your passion and love for comics that the loss of pedigrees would disturb you, and that individuals who deliberately tried to destroy a book's history for nothing more than profit would enrage you.

 

Guess I was wrong.

[tth2]

That shadow is a fingerprint. If a hobbyist can see this, why can't CGC pick up on this? CGC needs to do a better job at detecting alterations.

Of course CGC can pick up resubmissions in a lot of cases. There've been a ton of cracked and resubbed pedigree books with distinguishing features, where the CGC guys probably knew they'd seen the book before, even without checking back into their archives.

 

But their business model is that they don't care and will treat every new submission as a new submission, even if it makes a mockery of the sanctity of the whole grading and certification process.

 

What's really sad is that the slimebags playing the crack and resub game will sometimes hide the pedigreed nature of a book, so when CGC reslabs the book, the pedigree won't be noted anymore. I guess the slimebags are worried that CGC will not give the book a higher grade if they know they previously gave it a lower grade, even though all the evidence indicates that CGC don't care and will give a higher grade even when they definitely know they've graded it before.

 

Just to clarify, but is anyone who cracks and resubs a slimebag?

I should have said crack, press and resub.

 

And the answer is if the t-shirt fits, yes.

[buttock]

Let me tell you a story.

 

There once was an attorney. By all accounts, this man was well-educated, reasonable, personable, and well-liked. He managed to rise to a position in which his opinion was respected and sought. He had many opportunities to voice his opinion in a public manner.

 

Unfortunately, for reasons left to speculation, this man became involved - and eventually obsessed - with a cause for which reason was lost. The man shocked his community with a striking accusation of several individuals among the highest ranks. He created a list - more accurately a blacklist - of people toward whom he could level this accusation and instantly impune their credibility. This accusation became so powerful, he was able to wield it over many. It was an accusation for which proof was often absent or twisted. It was an accusation of a behavior that, despite it being worrisome to some and questionable to most, was nevertheless well within the reasonable limits of this community. The accusation was thrown about without discretion or proof. Good men had their lives ruined and their desires squashed by this accusation. The man became obsessed with this accusation, to the point where he lost all logic and reason.

 

Committees were organized, battle lines were drawn, sides were divided. The entire community became engulfed by the debates among sides.

 

Ultimately, this man -- again, a man who had been well-respected and had made much of his life -- was exposed for what he was. His accusations began to lose their merit and his voice became less and less heard. Eventually, he was condemned by his peers, ridiculed by the press, and ignored by his constituency.

 

Anyone want to guess who I’m talking about?

 

 

 

Mark, I don’t intend this to slight you. Rather, I hope you can recognize the parallels here as I think it might interject some rational thought into this. Given your career defending people against this exact type of behavior and your particular interest in comic books from this exact era, I find your approach often perplexing.

 

[1962]

Ouch

[MrBedrock]

Okay, Mr. Lawyerboy. Here we go...

Oh, and one other thing...Hey Esquire, or Mark Zaid. Sorry that mean ol' Steve Lauterbach took advantage of you like that.

I can definitely see why you hate having that 5.5 More Fun 52 in your collection.

 

I don't believe I ever wrote or have said to anyone that Lauterbach took advantage of me Mr. Bedrock or is it Richard Evans.

 

"Lauterbach conveniently did not tell me of what had transpired before the purchase..."

"... no thanks to Mr. Lauterbach." Your quotes.

 

In fact, I specifically said I bought the book with full knowledge of it's history but that Lauterbach had tried to hide it from me. Indeed, his actions worked to my benefit because I bought a book at a price under its value and the book has significantly increased in value since that time as well. (Sounds like he did you a favor)

 

 

The point of my recitation was to highlight the resub game and more importantly that this profit-making enterprise (how can it be a profit-making enterprise if you actually saved money after a resub?) is leading to the historical destruction of many important pedigree books (if the book is still intact and all it takes is a resub to have the pedigree notation returned then what is being destroyed?) The MF #52 is but just one example that has been identified over the last few years where the identification of an historical book was almost lost (is almost lost the same as not lost?).

 

I would have thought given your passion and love for comics that the loss of pedigrees would disturb you, and that individuals who deliberately tried to destroy a book's history for nothing more than profit would enrage you.

 

Guess I was wrong. (You are, as usual, wrong. But that is neither here nor there. What is at issue here is really whether or not anything heinous has actually occurred. From my understanding, you not only have the book you wanted, in a blue label, more valuable then originally presented, with provinence notated, and for significantly less money then originally offered. I think you called out Mr. Lauterbach for the wrong reason. )

[buttock]

Ouch

 

I hope you don't think this story is about Mark. I'm hoping Mark will recognize the tale right away.

[G.A.tor]

Ouch

 

I hope you don't think this story is about Mark. I'm hoping Mark will recognize the tale right away.

[1962]

Ouch

 

I hope you don't think this story is about Mark. I'm hoping Mark will recognize the tale right away.

 

I recognize the tale. The comparisons are interesting.