Supes #61 CGC 9.0 in CLink a resub?

[DrWatson]

Anyone want to guess who I’m talking about?

I could guess, but it would result in another threat of legal action. Who is it?

[MCMiles]

Slimebags?

[DrWatson]

Slimebags?

Apparently.

 

I am proud to call several of them friends and keep their company. I suppose there are a few that give the rest a bad name, but that's the same within any profession. Thank God we've got Billy Parker and Comix4fun.

[tth2]

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. )

Richard, the point you`re missing is that the reinstatement of the provenance was no thanks to the crack-n-resubber, who probably either didn`t care about provenance or intentionally was hiding it to try to get a better grade. Why should it have to be the responsibility of the buyer to restore the provenance when the crack-n-resubber knew the provenance all along? It`s like saying if someone stole one of your possessions and the police recovered it and returned it to you, why should you be mad at the thief since you got everything back.

 

Also, the other points that you`re making just happened to be fortuitous circumstances for this particular book for the buyer. In the vast majority of cases, the only person who benefits is the crack-n-resubber, and the buyer and the rest of the hobby is left holding the bag.

[tth2]

Not sure what the point of your story is, Dan. That anyone who feels strongly about something should refrain from saying anything too loudly to avoid the risk of being marginalized as part of the lunatic fringe? That the nail that sticks out will be hammered down?

 

I`m not sure what story or person you`re referring to, but if one believes in what one is saying and doing, particularly if it`s to right perceived wrongs, then one should voice one`s opinions and do what one can to right those wrongs. HOW one does that, and whether it turns out the person was completely wrong about the underlying facts that caused him to take up his cause in the first place, are different issues.

[tth2]

Slimebags?

Apparently.

 

I am proud to call several of them friends and keep their company.

Crooks and slimebags often have lots of friends and supporters.

[nearmint]

Slimebags?

Apparently.

 

I am proud to call several of them friends and keep their company.

Crooks and slimebags often have lots of friends and supporters.

 

And calling everyone that's ever cracked/pressed/re-subbed a slimebag is certainly your right, but it's a shame that you have to put down a large group of predominately great guys. I respect your opinion, Tim, but not how you approach the topic.

[esquirecomics]

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. )

Richard, the point you`re missing is that the reinstatement of the provenance was no thanks to the crack-n-resubber, who probably either didn`t care about provenance or intentionally was hiding it to try to get a better grade. Why should it have to be the responsibility of the buyer to restore the provenance when the crack-n-resubber knew the provenance all along? It`s like saying if someone stole one of your possessions and the police recovered it and returned it to you, why should you be mad at the thief since you got everything back.

 

Also, the other points that you`re making just happened to be fortuitous circumstances for this particular book for the buyer. In the vast majority of cases, the only person who benefits is the crack-n-resubber, and the buyer and the rest of the hobby is left holding the bag.

 

Exactly.

 

 

[esquirecomics]

Not sure what the point of your story is, Dan. That anyone who feels strongly about something should refrain from saying anything too loudly to avoid the risk of being marginalized as part of the lunatic fringe? That the nail that sticks out will be hammered down?

 

I`m not sure what story or person you`re referring to, but if one believes in what one is saying and doing, particularly if it`s to right perceived wrongs, then one should voice one`s opinions and do what one can to right those wrongs. HOW one does that, and whether it turns out the person was completely wrong about the underlying facts that caused him to take up his cause in the first place, are different issues.

 

I'm with Tim on this one.

 

And I'm afraid I don't see the parallels that Dan set out.

 

Nor do I understand how anyone could defend Lauterbach's actions in the example I gave. I thought the vast majority of those who posted in this section felt the history and provenance of books was important and respected that tremendously. From what I can tell from those posting after mine it appears you feel that the pursuit of profit outweighs the protection of history. So be it. I don't.

[esquirecomics]

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.

 

Richard, what is it of these words, that were conveniently omitted by you, that you don't understand:

 

but fortunately ComicKeys, of all people, exposed the alteration and at least I ultimately did purchase the book knowing what had occurred,

 

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. )

 

So, I'm wrong? You feel nothing heinous was done by Lauterbach, is that what you're saying? What reason do you believe I should have called Lauterbach out for?

 

The fact that he intentionally destroyed the historical pedigree provenance of a book doesn't bother you?

 

The fact that I had it restored is irrelevant and nothing but lucky timing that ComicKeys publicly posted information about the book that I read and investigated and found to be true before I purchased the book. Had I not, I still would have purchased it and for a fair price, but the Rockford copy would have ceased to exist.

 

[tth2]

Slimebags?

Apparently.

 

I am proud to call several of them friends and keep their company.

Crooks and slimebags often have lots of friends and supporters.

 

And calling everyone that's ever cracked/pressed/re-subbed a slimebag is certainly your right, but it's a shame that you have to put down a large group of predominately great guys. I respect your opinion, Tim, but not how you approach the topic.

What else can I do, Jeff? The polite live and let live approach has not done anything to stem the tide. Pressing has become rampant and is not only accepted but seems to be actively encouraged.

 

The pro-pressing community is clearly interpreting the anti-pressing community's silence as acquiescence on this issue. So all I can do is make my disdain for the practice, and those who engage in the process, very clear.

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

Slimebags?

Apparently.

 

I am proud to call several of them friends and keep their company.

Crooks and slimebags often have lots of friends and supporters.

 

And calling everyone that's ever cracked/pressed/re-subbed a slimebag is certainly your right, but it's a shame that you have to put down a large group of predominately great guys. I respect your opinion, Tim, but not how you approach the topic.

What else can I do, Jeff? The polite live and let live approach has not done anything to stem the tide. Pressing has become rampant and is not only accepted but seems to be actively encouraged.

 

The pro-pressing community is clearly interpreting the anti-pressing community's silence as acquiescence on this issue. So all I can do is make my disdain for the practice, and those who engage in the process, very clear.

 

And resorting to name-calling is going to "stem the tide"?

 

And please, if you feel so strongly about it, feel free to put anyone who fits your rather broad definition of "slimebag" on Ignore. Start with me.

 

 

 

[buttock]

Slimebags?

Apparently.

 

I am proud to call several of them friends and keep their company.

Crooks and slimebags often have lots of friends and supporters.

 

And calling everyone that's ever cracked/pressed/re-subbed a slimebag is certainly your right, but it's a shame that you have to put down a large group of predominately great guys. I respect your opinion, Tim, but not how you approach the topic.

What else can I do, Jeff? The polite live and let live approach has not done anything to stem the tide. Pressing has become rampant and is not only accepted but seems to be actively encouraged.

 

The pro-pressing community is clearly interpreting the anti-pressing community's silence as acquiescence on this issue. So all I can do is make my disdain for the practice, and those who engage in the process, very clear.

 

Tim, to be clear here, was the Superman pressed?

 

My issue is that you and Mark started tossing out insults immediately without bothering to do your due diligence and find out if the book was pressed. This is what makes my allusion to McCarthyism so relevant. It was easy for him to label someone a communist with no proof to back it up, and that stigma was then attached to the victim - and it was now their obligation to disprove it.

 

What if the Superman was really a 9.0? What if the perceived recent laxity in CGC's grading standards is the simple explanation?

 

How would you have liked it if, during one of your purges on Heritage, someone had started blindly pointing at your books as being "manipulated" and calling you names? Do you really think this is rational or productive behavior?

 

[Aman619]

Oh please. Don't go back to the Macarthy analogy. It's clever enough but widely overstates the subpoena power of Tim and even Zaid. you can't run an effective witchhunt if youre way out of the mainstream complaining sbout others cutting in line, Which is a better analogy for pressing. Pressing now is just more rude than criminal.

 

They have only pointed outs books that are proven to have been cracked and upgraded by a dealer widely known to crack press and resub. They aren't wildly accusing people of things they aren't well known for doing.

 

 

[nearmint]

Slimebags?

Apparently.

 

I am proud to call several of them friends and keep their company.

Crooks and slimebags often have lots of friends and supporters.

 

And calling everyone that's ever cracked/pressed/re-subbed a slimebag is certainly your right, but it's a shame that you have to put down a large group of predominately great guys. I respect your opinion, Tim, but not how you approach the topic.

What else can I do, Jeff? The polite live and let live approach has not done anything to stem the tide. Pressing has become rampant and is not only accepted but seems to be actively encouraged.

 

The pro-pressing community is clearly interpreting the anti-pressing community's silence as acquiescence on this issue. So all I can do is make my disdain for the practice, and those who engage in the process, very clear.

 

So, if you can't beat 'em, call 'em slimebags?

 

That's rather petty, and definitely beneath you.

[Straw-Man]

Slimebags?

Apparently.

 

I am proud to call several of them friends and keep their company.

Crooks and slimebags often have lots of friends and supporters.

 

And calling everyone that's ever cracked/pressed/re-subbed a slimebag is certainly your right, but it's a shame that you have to put down a large group of predominately great guys. I respect your opinion, Tim, but not how you approach the topic.

What else can I do, Jeff? The polite live and let live approach has not done anything to stem the tide. Pressing has become rampant and is not only accepted but seems to be actively encouraged.

 

The pro-pressing community is clearly interpreting the anti-pressing community's silence as acquiescence on this issue. So all I can do is make my disdain for the practice, and those who engage in the process, very clear.

 

 

So, if you can't beat 'em, call 'em slimebags?

 

That's rather petty, and definitely beneath you.

 

apparently it works jeff. looks like pressings have gone down .00000000217 since the slimeball blast hit the 'net. mattie has started a carpet cleaning sideline operation to cover the loss [dry clean only; the rugs will stay blue].

[Ze-man]

To be fair I can understand peoples frustration over the loss of Pedigree notations. I might disagree with how they chose to voice that displeasure, but respect the reasoning behind it.

 

Since pressing has for the most part become widely accepted in our hobby perhaps the day will come where people will not feel the need to continually hide or launder certain books that were pressed (or had resto removed) Even if they do not actively disclose at the time of sale at least they might re sub the book as a Pedigree and keep the provenance intact.

 

The intentional loss of Pedigree notations is a real move and one that is not even necessary imho.

[DrWatson]

I agree. If I crack, press and resubmit a pedigree, I certainly make note that it is the pedigree copy and send the old label in for verification. If I didn't do that, I might lose the pedigree "bump" those issues receive and as everyone knows, it's all about the number. (thumbs u

[buttock]

Oh please. Don't go back to the Macarthy analogy. It's clever enough but widely overstates the subpoena power of Tim and even Zaid. you can't run an effective witchhunt if youre way out of the mainstream complaining sbout others cutting in line, Which is a better analogy for pressing. Pressing now is just more rude than criminal.

 

They have only pointed outs books that are proven to have been cracked and upgraded by a dealer widely known to crack press and resub. They aren't wildly accusing people of things they aren't well known for doing.

 

 

Have you read the thread? The whole gist is that people are accusing and/or vilifying someone for pressing/resubbing the Supe 61 with no evidence that this has actually been done.

 

And I'm not even clear on what your analogy is. Cutting in line? I think the McCarthy analogy fits quite well - especially for the reason you state, "Pressing now is just more rude than criminal." Communism was not criminal, just frowned upon, but the whack-jobs treated it as though it was. Same goes for pressing.

[buttock]

Slimebags?

Apparently.

 

I am proud to call several of them friends and keep their company.

Crooks and slimebags often have lots of friends and supporters.

 

And calling everyone that's ever cracked/pressed/re-subbed a slimebag is certainly your right, but it's a shame that you have to put down a large group of predominately great guys. I respect your opinion, Tim, but not how you approach the topic.

What else can I do, Jeff? The polite live and let live approach has not done anything to stem the tide. Pressing has become rampant and is not only accepted but seems to be actively encouraged.

 

The pro-pressing community is clearly interpreting the anti-pressing community's silence as acquiescence on this issue. So all I can do is make my disdain for the practice, and those who engage in the process, very clear.

 

So, if you can't beat 'em, call 'em slimebags?

 

That's rather petty, and definitely beneath you.

 

Evidently not.