Jerry's All Star #8 better pics

[Flee-Marquette]

Man ... this forum sure is catty and full of "mean girls."

 

BLB may be overreacting to this situation, but why not let CGC defend itself? It's CGC's forum, after all, and it presumably would defend itself if it felt the need.

 

The catty comments sure don't seem to be shedding any light on the situation. I'm not sure who is supposed to be impressed by the trashing of longtime collectors with such petty accusations as they (1) propped up a GA book at an agle for photographing when it was in mylar with a backing board, (2) held up a comic one-handed while leaning over other comics, or (3) because of their personal appearance (which seems fine to me).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you had your meltdown yet Sharon? Or is this a trial run?

[skypinkblu]

Man ... this forum sure is catty and full of "mean girls."

 

BLB may be overreacting to this situation, but why not let CGC defend itself? It's CGC's forum, after all, and it presumably would defend itself if it felt the need.

 

The catty comments sure don't seem to be shedding any light on the situation. I'm not sure who is supposed to be impressed by the trashing of longtime collectors with such petty accusations as they (1) propped up a GA book at an agle for photographing when it was in mylar with a backing board, (2) held up a comic one-handed while leaning over other comics, or (3) because of their personal appearance (which seems fine to me).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you had your meltdown yet Sharon? Or is this a trial run?

 

 

Hi Flee!

 

Thanks for noticing my post:) I'm on a gender correctiveness kick;)

 

I was just gently pointing out that none of the posters he was referring to, appeared to be female;)

 

It takes a lot more to melt me down;) This was more of an EDUCATIONAL post;)

 

Kind of like...NO FEMALES PARTICIPATED IN THE POSTS you referenced;)

 

Better?

[Flee-Marquette]

Man ... this forum sure is catty and full of "mean girls."

 

BLB may be overreacting to this situation, but why not let CGC defend itself? It's CGC's forum, after all, and it presumably would defend itself if it felt the need.

 

The catty comments sure don't seem to be shedding any light on the situation. I'm not sure who is supposed to be impressed by the trashing of longtime collectors with such petty accusations as they (1) propped up a GA book at an agle for photographing when it was in mylar with a backing board, (2) held up a comic one-handed while leaning over other comics, or (3) because of their personal appearance (which seems fine to me).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you had your meltdown yet Sharon? Or is this a trial run?

 

 

Hi Flee!

 

Thanks for noticing my post:) I'm on a gender correctiveness kick;)

 

I was just gently pointing out that none of the posters he was referring to, appeared to be female;)

 

It takes a lot more to melt me down;) This was more of an EDUCATIONAL post;)

 

Kind of like...NO FEMALES PARTICIPATED IN THE POSTS you referenced;)

 

Better?

Yes.

 

I guess I should have added this to my post

 

Still want to see a meltdown someday though.

[Wayne-Tec]

I hear you but I think that's beside the point. richard evans had a comment about that book being restored with respect to the shading near the staple that was both objective and extremely convincing. At this point I'm sorry bob but "mayhap" you be dead wrong. Its OK to admit it.

 

Might the book have been restored? Perhaps.

 

But it appears to me that until we have solid proof (and I'm not sure, do we?), I would like to focus more so on what we do know.

 

From as far as I can tell, that specific book (as well as others) did not appear to be handled as carefully as it could have been; the photograph is pretty clear.

 

Think about it this way, if you were to find out that CGC kept of of their submissions on a living room floor, laid up against boxes with somewhat heavy objects spread across tables not far from the books themselves; would you be alarmed in any way? Would you brag to your friends about how safely you felt your books were kept?

 

Of course not.

 

It might be fair to criticize a possible error made on CGC's part if you feel that they were not as careful as they could have been; but it doesn't appear that the book in question was handled with enough care at the time the picture was taken either.

 

Um, with all due respect, the books in the pics we took that night were laid out for all of a few minutes. Everything was secure, this thought pattern you project is irrelevant as once we were done with the pics (for posterity for ourselves), they were replaced into their nice new mag comic boxes along with some foam at prerequisite places so as not to slosh around

 

Actually, when I think about it, with all due respect, as every one is entitled to what ever opine they choose to perceive, the train of thought here is absurd.

 

I personally sold well over two thirds of what is erroneously referred to as "San Francisco" copies of what should be properly called the Tom Reilly collection, the name of the deceased sailor who died during World War Two. For many years the #2 Pedigree out there in funny book land. Is it still? I do not keep up with such inanities any more.

 

Just for the record, I think the Detective 27 which broke a million dollars at a recent Heritage auction was and is the Tom Reilly copy I sold to (then) Houston major collector, later dealer attorney (for Hunt Oil) Burl Rowe back in May/June 1973 for $2200 thereby becoming the very first comic book to break the two grand barrier, then a world's record.

 

By today's standards it was a VF. Burl sold it to Gary and Lane Carter who then sold it to one one else. World be fun to trace the Heritage Tec 27 backwards to see if the path is crossed.

 

Burl paid me two grand even for the NM type Whiz 2 (#1) - it was such a beautiful vibrant white paper high grade. Burl bought other high grade Reilly copies for big bucks, but I forget the other books now, lost to the mists of time -

 

I was the main vintage comics person for the Comics & Comix corporation in its earliest incarnations 1972-1975. That Tec2 7 sale which went AP/UPI world wide as a wire service story brought us in three more Tec 27s that month. Had a few more later on over time. This is just one book. I learned early on the power of the media bringing in books and publicity.

 

Point being, to even hint that myself, and other close friends I let into my warehouse comics research site who end up handling rare books, do not know how to do same, is, well, absurd.

 

That all said, if the All Stars were left out to be trampled on, well, yes, then you have a point and a case.

 

When we did this, I had just gotten in a plethora of material which was in the middle of being processed, hence, stacks every where. We were in the receiving area.

 

What you do not get to see were the six other rooms in the place which contained more of the storage archive areas plus my computer work room.

 

The room you see is where other books books were processed and I re-iterate, as I assume this to be a serious query, and will treat it as such, the All Stars were laid out for a few minutes, we took a couple shots, then placed them all back into their storage protection.

 

Jerry Bails was a close friend, and I was honored to be asked to handle his books & art.

 

Honored.

 

Nothing wrong with being honored to have had the opportunity to handle the books; my issue is the amount of care that was displayed in the photographs. What was done before and after is beyond my knowledge as I clearly wasn't there.

 

But just because you didn't leave them out all night and you didn't leave them out for dogs to trample on doesn't mean you used as much care as you could have; I think to imply that you were as careful as you could have is a bit absurd; if not down-right incorrect.

 

Laying multiple books on top of one another might not do irreparable damage, but that doesn't make it good for the books condition either. If something of weight is laid on-top of another object, something is happening even if no damage is apparent.

 

This would be an extreme example, but would one lay a baged and boarded comic book over the declaration of independence? If doing so to comic books does no damage at all, the same principle should apply to older paper as well. My point being, that just because no significant amount of damage becomes apparent doesn't mean that nothing at all is happening.

 

Now, standing up comic books and laying them up against the backs of boxes; what exactly do you think happens to the weight of a comic book when you stand it up? Is it evenly distributed? Does it put any amount of pressure at all on any parts of the book? Again, I'm not saying that much of anything was likely to happen; but is that really showing the absolute most care one could for those comic books?

 

A packing tape dispenser laying on-top of a cluttered table only a foot or two away from all the comic books? Is that showing as much care as one could have for all those books?

 

In the background; comic books not being stacked evenly, some hanging off the side of the table; is that showing as much care as one could?

 

Listen, I respect the fact that you have been around the business for decades and I respect the fact that you've been granted the pleasure to handle so many beautiful looking books; but that doesn't excuse a level of care that was if nothing else, not as careful as one could have been.

 

If anything, I would think that so much experience would prevent you from taking unnecessary risks which is exactly what appears to have happened. I can appreciate the desire to take pictures showing off all the books; you simply didn't appear to be as careful as you could have been.

 

You could have laid the books flat and went through them one stack at a time (as to not fill up the entire room); this would have been safer then standing them up or laying them on-top of one another.

 

You could have removed heavy objects from surrounding tables and/or kept them away from the approximate distance all together.

 

You could have not allowed stacks of comic books to be hanging off the sides of tables.

 

There was much that could have been done to show more care but that was simply not done for whatever reason. I'm not trying to nit-pick or be difficult or anything of that nature; it just seems to be a bit hypocritical to criticize CGC for allegedly not showing enough care while you yourself seemed to struggle with that yourself.

[sfcityduck]

I hear you but I think that's beside the point. richard evans had a comment about that book being restored with respect to the shading near the staple that was both objective and extremely convincing. At this point I'm sorry bob but "mayhap" you be dead wrong. Its OK to admit it.

 

Might the book have been restored? Perhaps.

 

But it appears to me that until we have solid proof (and I'm not sure, do we?), I would like to focus more so on what we do know.

 

From as far as I can tell, that specific book (as well as others) did not appear to be handled as carefully as it could have been; the photograph is pretty clear.

 

Think about it this way, if you were to find out that CGC kept of of their submissions on a living room floor, laid up against boxes with somewhat heavy objects spread across tables not far from the books themselves; would you be alarmed in any way? Would you brag to your friends about how safely you felt your books were kept?

 

Of course not.

 

It might be fair to criticize a possible error made on CGC's part if you feel that they were not as careful as they could have been; but it doesn't appear that the book in question was handled with enough care at the time the picture was taken either.

 

Um, with all due respect, the books in the pics we took that night were laid out for all of a few minutes. Everything was secure, this thought pattern you project is irrelevant as once we were done with the pics (for posterity for ourselves), they were replaced into their nice new mag comic boxes along with some foam at prerequisite places so as not to slosh around

 

Actually, when I think about it, with all due respect, as every one is entitled to what ever opine they choose to perceive, the train of thought here is absurd.

 

I personally sold well over two thirds of what is erroneously referred to as "San Francisco" copies of what should be properly called the Tom Reilly collection, the name of the deceased sailor who died during World War Two. For many years the #2 Pedigree out there in funny book land. Is it still? I do not keep up with such inanities any more.

 

Just for the record, I think the Detective 27 which broke a million dollars at a recent Heritage auction was and is the Tom Reilly copy I sold to (then) Houston major collector, later dealer attorney (for Hunt Oil) Burl Rowe back in May/June 1973 for $2200 thereby becoming the very first comic book to break the two grand barrier, then a world's record.

 

By today's standards it was a VF. Burl sold it to Gary and Lane Carter who then sold it to one one else. World be fun to trace the Heritage Tec 27 backwards to see if the path is crossed.

 

Burl paid me two grand even for the NM type Whiz 2 (#1) - it was such a beautiful vibrant white paper high grade. Burl bought other high grade Reilly copies for big bucks, but I forget the other books now, lost to the mists of time -

 

I was the main vintage comics person for the Comics & Comix corporation in its earliest incarnations 1972-1975. That Tec2 7 sale which went AP/UPI world wide as a wire service story brought us in three more Tec 27s that month. Had a few more later on over time. This is just one book. I learned early on the power of the media bringing in books and publicity.

 

Point being, to even hint that myself, and other close friends I let into my warehouse comics research site who end up handling rare books, do not know how to do same, is, well, absurd.

 

That all said, if the All Stars were left out to be trampled on, well, yes, then you have a point and a case.

 

When we did this, I had just gotten in a plethora of material which was in the middle of being processed, hence, stacks every where. We were in the receiving area.

 

What you do not get to see were the six other rooms in the place which contained more of the storage archive areas plus my computer work room.

 

The room you see is where other books books were processed and I re-iterate, as I assume this to be a serious query, and will treat it as such, the All Stars were laid out for a few minutes, we took a couple shots, then placed them all back into their storage protection.

 

Jerry Bails was a close friend, and I was honored to be asked to handle his books & art.

 

Honored.

 

Nothing wrong with being honored to have had the opportunity to handle the books; my issue is the amount of care that was displayed in the photographs. What was done before and after is beyond my knowledge as I clearly wasn't there.

 

But just because you didn't leave them out all night and you didn't leave them out for dogs to trample on doesn't mean you used as much care as you could have; I think to imply that you were as careful as you could have is a bit absurd; if not down-right incorrect.

 

Laying multiple books on top of one another might not do irreparable damage, but that doesn't make it good for the books condition either. If something of weight is laid on-top of another object, something is happening even if no damage is apparent.

 

This would be an extreme example, but would one lay a baged and boarded comic book over the declaration of independence? If doing so to comic books does no damage at all, the same principle should apply to older paper as well. My point being, that just because no significant amount of damage becomes apparent doesn't mean that nothing at all is happening.

 

Now, standing up comic books and laying them up against the backs of boxes; what exactly do you think happens to the weight of a comic book when you stand it up? Is it evenly distributed? Does it put any amount of pressure at all on any parts of the book? Again, I'm not saying that much of anything was likely to happen; but is that really showing the absolute most care one could for those comic books?

 

A packing tape dispenser laying on-top of a cluttered table only a foot or two away from all the comic books? Is that showing as much care as one could have for all those books?

 

In the background; comic books not being stacked evenly, some hanging off the side of the table; is that showing as much care as one could?

 

Listen, I respect the fact that you have been around the business for decades and I respect the fact that you've been granted the pleasure to handle so many beautiful looking books; but that doesn't excuse a level of care that was if nothing else, not as careful as one could have been.

 

If anything, I would think that so much experience would prevent you from taking unnecessary risks which is exactly what appears to have happened. I can appreciate the desire to take pictures showing off all the books; you simply didn't appear to be as careful as you could have been.

 

You could have laid the books flat and went through them one stack at a time (as to not fill up the entire room); this would have been safer then standing them up or laying them on-top of one another.

 

You could have removed heavy objects from surrounding tables and/or kept them away from the approximate distance all together.

 

You could have not allowed stacks of comic books to be hanging off the sides of tables.

 

There was much that could have been done to show more care but that was simply not done for whatever reason. I'm not trying to nit-pick or be difficult or anything of that nature; it just seems to be a bit hypocritical to criticize CGC for allegedly not showing enough care while you yourself seemed to struggle with that yourself.

 

This post is absurd. The bold text is so embarassing to you, that I'm shocked you even typed it.

 

Seriously.

 

Have you ever seen a picture of Chuck in his living room going through the Mile High collection? It was far messier and haphazard than you see in this picture of Mylared and backed books.

 

For that matter, have you seen pictures of Roy cracking his MPFW in a kitchen in Eugene just to show it off? Far more dangerous than anything I see here.

 

What about the pictures of the folks at CGC balancing an Action 1 on their ungloved hands to show it had the creamest off-white pages ever? I'm surprised those pictures didn't cause you heart palpitations. [Actually, come to think of it, that treatment was shocking.]

 

Really really hard for me to avoid laughing out loud at your outrage at displaying comics by laying them on a carpet or stacking them on a table. Especially when all I know about you is that you paid money to have someone cut up a page of a Superman comic so you you could have a panel.

 

BLB may not have a case, but not for any of the reasons I see in these catty posts.

[Wayne-Tec]

I hear you but I think that's beside the point. richard evans had a comment about that book being restored with respect to the shading near the staple that was both objective and extremely convincing. At this point I'm sorry bob but "mayhap" you be dead wrong. Its OK to admit it.

 

Might the book have been restored? Perhaps.

 

But it appears to me that until we have solid proof (and I'm not sure, do we?), I would like to focus more so on what we do know.

 

From as far as I can tell, that specific book (as well as others) did not appear to be handled as carefully as it could have been; the photograph is pretty clear.

 

Think about it this way, if you were to find out that CGC kept of of their submissions on a living room floor, laid up against boxes with somewhat heavy objects spread across tables not far from the books themselves; would you be alarmed in any way? Would you brag to your friends about how safely you felt your books were kept?

 

Of course not.

 

It might be fair to criticize a possible error made on CGC's part if you feel that they were not as careful as they could have been; but it doesn't appear that the book in question was handled with enough care at the time the picture was taken either.

 

Um, with all due respect, the books in the pics we took that night were laid out for all of a few minutes. Everything was secure, this thought pattern you project is irrelevant as once we were done with the pics (for posterity for ourselves), they were replaced into their nice new mag comic boxes along with some foam at prerequisite places so as not to slosh around

 

Actually, when I think about it, with all due respect, as every one is entitled to what ever opine they choose to perceive, the train of thought here is absurd.

 

I personally sold well over two thirds of what is erroneously referred to as "San Francisco" copies of what should be properly called the Tom Reilly collection, the name of the deceased sailor who died during World War Two. For many years the #2 Pedigree out there in funny book land. Is it still? I do not keep up with such inanities any more.

 

Just for the record, I think the Detective 27 which broke a million dollars at a recent Heritage auction was and is the Tom Reilly copy I sold to (then) Houston major collector, later dealer attorney (for Hunt Oil) Burl Rowe back in May/June 1973 for $2200 thereby becoming the very first comic book to break the two grand barrier, then a world's record.

 

By today's standards it was a VF. Burl sold it to Gary and Lane Carter who then sold it to one one else. World be fun to trace the Heritage Tec 27 backwards to see if the path is crossed.

 

Burl paid me two grand even for the NM type Whiz 2 (#1) - it was such a beautiful vibrant white paper high grade. Burl bought other high grade Reilly copies for big bucks, but I forget the other books now, lost to the mists of time -

 

I was the main vintage comics person for the Comics & Comix corporation in its earliest incarnations 1972-1975. That Tec2 7 sale which went AP/UPI world wide as a wire service story brought us in three more Tec 27s that month. Had a few more later on over time. This is just one book. I learned early on the power of the media bringing in books and publicity.

 

Point being, to even hint that myself, and other close friends I let into my warehouse comics research site who end up handling rare books, do not know how to do same, is, well, absurd.

 

That all said, if the All Stars were left out to be trampled on, well, yes, then you have a point and a case.

 

When we did this, I had just gotten in a plethora of material which was in the middle of being processed, hence, stacks every where. We were in the receiving area.

 

What you do not get to see were the six other rooms in the place which contained more of the storage archive areas plus my computer work room.

 

The room you see is where other books books were processed and I re-iterate, as I assume this to be a serious query, and will treat it as such, the All Stars were laid out for a few minutes, we took a couple shots, then placed them all back into their storage protection.

 

Jerry Bails was a close friend, and I was honored to be asked to handle his books & art.

 

Honored.

 

Nothing wrong with being honored to have had the opportunity to handle the books; my issue is the amount of care that was displayed in the photographs. What was done before and after is beyond my knowledge as I clearly wasn't there.

 

But just because you didn't leave them out all night and you didn't leave them out for dogs to trample on doesn't mean you used as much care as you could have; I think to imply that you were as careful as you could have is a bit absurd; if not down-right incorrect.

 

Laying multiple books on top of one another might not do irreparable damage, but that doesn't make it good for the books condition either. If something of weight is laid on-top of another object, something is happening even if no damage is apparent.

 

This would be an extreme example, but would one lay a baged and boarded comic book over the declaration of independence? If doing so to comic books does no damage at all, the same principle should apply to older paper as well. My point being, that just because no significant amount of damage becomes apparent doesn't mean that nothing at all is happening.

 

Now, standing up comic books and laying them up against the backs of boxes; what exactly do you think happens to the weight of a comic book when you stand it up? Is it evenly distributed? Does it put any amount of pressure at all on any parts of the book? Again, I'm not saying that much of anything was likely to happen; but is that really showing the absolute most care one could for those comic books?

 

A packing tape dispenser laying on-top of a cluttered table only a foot or two away from all the comic books? Is that showing as much care as one could have for all those books?

 

In the background; comic books not being stacked evenly, some hanging off the side of the table; is that showing as much care as one could?

 

Listen, I respect the fact that you have been around the business for decades and I respect the fact that you've been granted the pleasure to handle so many beautiful looking books; but that doesn't excuse a level of care that was if nothing else, not as careful as one could have been.

 

If anything, I would think that so much experience would prevent you from taking unnecessary risks which is exactly what appears to have happened. I can appreciate the desire to take pictures showing off all the books; you simply didn't appear to be as careful as you could have been.

 

You could have laid the books flat and went through them one stack at a time (as to not fill up the entire room); this would have been safer then standing them up or laying them on-top of one another.

 

You could have removed heavy objects from surrounding tables and/or kept them away from the approximate distance all together.

 

You could have not allowed stacks of comic books to be hanging off the sides of tables.

 

There was much that could have been done to show more care but that was simply not done for whatever reason. I'm not trying to nit-pick or be difficult or anything of that nature; it just seems to be a bit hypocritical to criticize CGC for allegedly not showing enough care while you yourself seemed to struggle with that yourself.

 

This post is absurd. The bold text is so embarassing to you, that I'm shocked you even typed it.

 

Seriously.

 

Have you ever seen a picture of Chuck in his living room going through the Mile High collection? It was far messier and haphazard than you see in this picture of Mylared and backed books.

 

For that matter, have you seen pictures of Roy cracking his MPFW in a kitchen in Eugene just to show it off? Far more dangerous than anything I see here.

 

What about the pictures of the folks at CGC balancing an Action 1 on their ungloved hands to show it had the creamest off-white pages ever? I'm surprised those pictures didn't cause you heart palpitations. [Actually, come to think of it, that treatment was shocking.]

 

Really really hard for me to avoid laughing out loud at your outrage at displaying comics by laying them on a carpet or stacking them on a table. Especially when all I know about you is that you paid money to have someone cut up a page of a Superman comic so you you could have a panel.

 

BLB may not have a case, but not for any of the reasons I see in these catty posts.

 

I have seen a number of pictures where people have not used as much care as they could have. As a matter of fact, I've raised similar questions before with the difference in this instance being, the person who handled books in this type of fashion is now criticizing someone else (in this case, CGC) for not being as careful as they could have been.

 

That is what I found to be somewhat hypocritical.

 

As far as your highlighted quotes, what about them do you find to be so absurd?

 

I'll go by what you've highlighted specifically...

 

Do you find it absurd that I implied that laying comic books ontop of one another won't do irreparable damage but isn't good for the book's condition either?

 

Do you find it absurd that I implied that putting weight ontop of another object does something to the object beneath it even if no damage is apparent?

 

Do you find it absurd that I implied that it laying a comic book (or something else of weight) ontop of the declaration of independence might do something beyond "no damage at all"?

 

Because these were the things that I said, which you highlighted because you found them to be absurd. You are more than welcome to explain what you found to be absurd about the statements.

 

As far as my paying to have someone cut a panel out of a loose page, that really has nothing to do with the handling of someone elses comics. That is an instance where I offered a percentage of a collector's asking price to buy a portion of what was offered for sale.

 

I wouldn't have suggested handling either the loose page or the clipped panel in the same fashion photographed within this thread. So we're essentially talking about two very different things.

[Ze-man]

 

 

 

Bob, I really wish you would step back and rethink everything

 

Because when I take aside who you are, and what you mean to this hobby( and that is not lost on me Bob), what I see in front of me is a spine rolled book with DEEP cover tears, that were glued, and not just a spot of glue either.

 

Then I see another photo of you with all the books laid out in a room I would call cluttered at best. But right there in plain sight on the table by the monitor are 2 tupperware containers of glue, a tacking iron, a brush and a magnification loupe.

 

Even if you didn't apply glue to the AS 8 yourself, this photo is incredibly damning.

 

You say CGC pulled the repaired area loose in a devil may care attitude which caused more damage then was originally there. But who is to say the staple area was not held together by little more then a cats whisker and simply broke free when the next person in line opened the book? And even if there was added damage, it was not enough to drop the grade of the book compared to what it was when it left your hands.

 

I wish you and Bails wife all the best, and hope you get the most out of the books.

 

But when I look at everything(especially the Ebay listing) I cannot help but wonder if you really understand how people are going to perceive all of this. Even if in your minds eye you were wronged and want justice, all you are doing is digging a hole.

 

Sometimes you just have to move on, and I really wish you would for your own sake.

 

That is as honest, and respectful as I can be.

 

[sfcityduck]

AF15Kid asks: "Do you find it absurd that I implied that laying comic books ontop of one another ... isn't good for the book's condition either?"

 

Yes.

 

"Do you find it absurd that I implied that putting weight ontop of another object does something to the object beneath it even if no damage is apparent?"

 

Yes.

 

"Do you find it absurd that I implied that it laying a comic book (or something else of weight) ontop of the declaration of independence might do something beyond "no damage at all"?"

 

Yes.

 

"You are more than welcome to explain what you found to be absurd about the statements."

 

Experience and physics teach that paper is not harmed by the relatively limited pressure exerted by a stack of comics. The Mile High and Pacific Coast collections were stacked over six feet high with not only no ill effects, but, if anything, the "natural pressing" the comics underwent enhanced their value.

 

For the record, I also find the following statements absurd for the same reasoning:

 

Now, standing up comic books and laying them up against the backs of boxes; what exactly do you think happens to the weight of a comic book when you stand it up? Is it evenly distributed? Does it put any amount of pressure at all on any parts of the book? Again, I'm not saying that much of anything was likely to happen; but is that really showing the absolute most care one could for those comic books?

 

A packing tape dispenser laying on-top of a cluttered table only a foot or two away from all the comic books? Is that showing as much care as one could have for all those books?

 

And perhaps the most absurd comment was this:

 

I'm not trying to nit-pick or be difficult or anything of that nature; it just seems to be a bit hypocritical to criticize CGC for allegedly not showing enough care while you yourself seemed to struggle with that yourself.

 

"Not trying to nitpick"? Really? Fooled me.

 

[Aman619]

I agree with the duck on this aspect of the discussion. really smacks of going out on a limb to disparage BLB with this line of questioning. Move on counselor....

 

we all lay out our books sometimes, and stand them up in mylars when they have backing boards inside. no big deal.

 

the tacking iron??? whoa. different story.

[Offbeat Archives]

Then I see another photo of you with all the books laid out in a room I would call cluttered at best. But right there in plain sight on the table by the monitor are 2 tupperware containers of glue, a tacking iron, a brush and a magnification loupe.

 

Even if you didn't apply glue to the AS 8 yourself, this photo is incredibly damning.

 

Interesting catch. Kenny. That adds a new angle to the whole discussion.

 

[Wayne-Tec]

AF15Kid asks: "Do you find it absurd that I implied that laying comic books ontop of one another ... isn't good for the book's condition either?"

 

Yes.

 

"Do you find it absurd that I implied that putting weight ontop of another object does something to the object beneath it even if no damage is apparent?"

 

Yes.

 

"Do you find it absurd that I implied that it laying a comic book (or something else of weight) ontop of the declaration of independence might do something beyond "no damage at all"?"

 

Yes.

 

"You are more than welcome to explain what you found to be absurd about the statements."

 

Experience and physics teach that paper is not harmed by the relatively limited pressure exerted by a stack of comics. The Mile High and Pacific Coast collections were stacked over six feet high with not only no ill effects, but, if anything, the "natural pressing" the comics underwent enhanced their value.

 

For the record, I also find the following statements absurd for the same reasoning:

 

Now, standing up comic books and laying them up against the backs of boxes; what exactly do you think happens to the weight of a comic book when you stand it up? Is it evenly distributed? Does it put any amount of pressure at all on any parts of the book? Again, I'm not saying that much of anything was likely to happen; but is that really showing the absolute most care one could for those comic books?

 

A packing tape dispenser laying on-top of a cluttered table only a foot or two away from all the comic books? Is that showing as much care as one could have for all those books?

 

And perhaps the most absurd comment was this:

 

I'm not trying to nit-pick or be difficult or anything of that nature; it just seems to be a bit hypocritical to criticize CGC for allegedly not showing enough care while you yourself seemed to struggle with that yourself.

 

"Not trying to nitpick"? Really? Fooled me.

 

You are more than entitled to your opinion, but if your answer is yes to the above posted questions, please feel free to explain why.

 

True "natural pressing" if you will, has the potential to better the conditon of the books but that is not what we're seeing here. I wasn't talking about evenly stacked comics, I was talking about comics spread around ontop of one another unevenly as well as stacks in the background hanging off the side of a table; do you really feel that doing such is showing the most care possible?

 

You find it absurd that I implied that laying comic books ontop of one another isn't good for the books; do you believe that it IS either good or can do no damage at all in the positions photographed?

 

You find it absurd that I implied that putting weight ontop of a comic does something; do you feel that it does nothing at all?

 

You find it absurd that I implied that putting a comic (or something else of weight) ontop of something as old as the declaration of independence might do something beyond "no damage at all"; does that mean that there would be no chance of damage by applying that amount of weight?

 

I'm not wanting to sound sarcastic here but you didn't specify.

 

My comments didn't suggest that how he handled the comics caused and considerable amount of damage but rather, that so doing was not indicative of using as much care as possible. Do you feel that he did use as much care as possible?

[Wayne-Tec]

On a seperate note to Bob,

 

I don't want the point I'm trying to make to be taken the wrong way as it appears it may have been.

 

I do not think that you are or were meaning to be reckless with the All-Star books in question; I was just trying to point out that it does not appear as though you used as much care as you could have.

 

I do not think you damaged the books and if any thing did happen, I imagine it would be so miniscule that nothing would even be noticed so long as none of the books fell down or got knocked over. My point rather was simply that something could have happened.

 

I understand that one can only prevent so much but I personally feel that certain things can be avoided (standing books up in the fashion that the #25 was, having heavy objects on tables close by, etc.). I'm sure that you had the absolute best of intentions when you took the pictures so I apologize if it comes off as me criticizing you for a bunch of random reasons.

 

I feel the same way when others have done the same but the difference in this instance is that a) to the best of my knowledge, many of those books belonged to someone else and b) you criticized CGC for their alleged lack of caution all the while the pictures to me at least, seemed to indicate that there may have been a lack of caution (albeit, in a completely different way) on your part.

 

I did not find the jokes about the man's personal appearence to be humorous and at the same time, I myself am not looking to take cheap-shots. Like I said before, I believe that you have the best of intentions and are trying your best to help someone out.

 

As far as the book being restored, unrestored, the staple being popped by improper handling, the staple being popped despite careful handling, I honestly don't know and am not qualifed to speculate beyond my own opinion.

 

Again, if I came off as offensive in any way I do apologize as my intent is not to offend someone for my own amusement. I'd be happy to answer any questions directly if that would help clearify and if it wouldn't be worth your time, I wouldn't be offended. I realize of course that for better or worse, you're concerned about more serious issues at hand.

[143ksk]

 

I have seen a number of pictures where people have not used as much care as they could have. As a matter of fact, I've raised similar questions before

 

It's true, he is equal opportunity in his policing of the care others give their books. He had an issue with this picture:

 

 

Amazing, amazing books. Words really wouldn't do it justice.

 

But there is one thing I can never understand. How is it that people can ever have such valuable books out in the open, bumping next to other books, or laying on-top of a box like the Tec #29 was?

 

I'm assuming no harm would come to the books otherwise I'm sure no one would do it, but I get over-protective over most books in my collection. Granted, their not of the caliber of the ones pictured (obviously) but when you have books that valuable, don't you get just a tad nervous?

 

Reminds me of this...

 

 

How could you hold an unrestored 6.0 Action #1 with one hand upside-down (even for a split second).

 

Best case scenario, nothing happens. Worst case scenario...anything happens.

[G.A.tor]

 

I have seen a number of pictures where people have not used as much care as they could have. As a matter of fact, I've raised similar questions before

 

It's true, he is equal opportunity in his policing of the care others give their books. He had an issue with this picture:

 

 

Amazing, amazing books. Words really wouldn't do it justice.

 

But there is one thing I can never understand. How is it that people can ever have such valuable books out in the open, bumping next to other books, or laying on-top of a box like the Tec #29 was?

 

I'm assuming no harm would come to the books otherwise I'm sure no one would do it, but I get over-protective over most books in my collection. Granted, their not of the caliber of the ones pictured (obviously) but when you have books that valuable, don't you get just a tad nervous?

 

Reminds me of this...

 

 

How could you hold an unrestored 6.0 Action #1 with one hand upside-down (even for a split second).

 

Best case scenario, nothing happens. Worst case scenario...anything happens.

the quick and simple answer is that "they are just comic books"... that have been designed to be handled and read and enjoyed...

sure, they can have value, but at the end of the day, they are just comics (Thumbs u

[Boboset]

This thread is sickening.

 

Why should CGC reimburse Bob $10,000? This book was never worth that much to begin with. If CGC decided to shred the book and send Bob back the remnants even then he wouldn't be entitled to that much money.

 

If the staple pop is such a big deal, why is it not mentioned in the ebay auction? That is a clear attempt to deceive all interested parties. You want CGC to do right by you but at the same time that book sits on ebay falsely represented.

 

I'm not even going to get into the restoration tools pictured in his basement...

 

These points have been brought up before and quickly avoided.

 

Bob has some nice comics, he's one of the old time dealers that many have purchased from over the years but that should not excuse his actions.

[Pirate]

This thread is sickening.

 

Why should CGC reimburse Bob $10,000? This book was never worth that much to begin with. If CGC decided to shred the book and send Bob back the remnants even then he wouldn't be entitled to that much money.

 

If the staple pop is such a big deal, why is it not mentioned in the ebay auction? That is a clear attempt to deceive all interested parties. You want CGC to do right by you but at the same time that book sits on ebay falsely represented.

 

I'm not even going to get into the restoration tools pictured in his basement...

 

These points have been brought up before and quickly avoided.

 

Bob has some nice comics, he's one of the old time dealers that many have purchased from over the years but that should not excuse his actions.

 

don't forget he came on here begging for money to fix his hips and now crapping on the company that runs said boards.

 

I wonder how many other books were improved.

[nearmint]

Then I see another photo of you with all the books laid out in a room I would call cluttered at best. But right there in plain sight on the table by the monitor are 2 tupperware containers of glue, a tacking iron, a brush and a magnification loupe. \:\(

 

Oops.

[Pirate]

Then I see another photo of you with all the books laid out in a room I would call cluttered at best. But right there in plain sight on the table by the monitor are 2 tupperware containers of glue, a tacking iron, a brush and a magnification loupe. \:\(

 

Oops.

 

[stagedoorjohnny]

Why should CGC reimburse Bob $10,000? This book was never worth that much to begin with.

 

If the staple pop is such a big deal, why is it not mentioned in the ebay auction?

 

I'm not even going to get into the restoration tools pictured in his basement...

 

These points have been brought up before and quickly avoided.

 

 

(thumbs u In a nutshell.

[fantastic_four]

Then I see another photo of you with all the books laid out in a room I would call cluttered at best. But right there in plain sight on the table by the monitor are 2 tupperware containers of glue, a tacking iron, a brush and a magnification loupe.

 

Even if you didn't apply glue to the AS 8 yourself, this photo is incredibly damning.

 

I've read both threads, but I'm missing or forgetting something--why is this damning?