Curator FF's!

[Drummy]

I'm going to agree with Bob and others that discussion of books for public sale, both laudatory and critical, is fair game on these Boards if the poster is generally acting in good faith to offer a point of discussion and not just to bash books (or owners).

 

We can all tell a book's defects from scans like Heritage's, so while speculation about how the defects got there may be interesting to some, it doesn't change the book itself. I believe we all can disagree about the kind of wear that we like or dislike, or what's not appealing to our eye, without too much fear that we will unduly affect the market.

 

For myself, I dislike indented staples, dust or sun shadows, logo box corner wear, and chipping. Some will agree and others don't care. I'd be interested to know what kind of damage can occur from improper pressing, to be sure, but more as an educational point than as a reason not to bid -- I assume all HG books have been pressed anyway.

 

All that said, posting criticism of a book in someone's sales thread on the Boards is poor form; in that instance, silence is golden and let the books and prices speak for themselves.

 

Dan

[VintageComics]

I'm going to agree with Bob and others that discussion of books for public sale, both laudatory and critical, is fair game on these Boards if the poster is generally acting in good faith to offer a point of discussion and not just to bash books (or owners).

 

We can all tell a book's defects from scans like Heritage's, so while speculation about how the defects got there may be interesting to some, it doesn't change the book itself. I believe we all can disagree about the kind of wear that we like or dislike, or what's not appealing to our eye, without too much fear that we will unduly affect the market.

 

For myself, I dislike indented staples, dust or sun shadows, logo box corner wear, and chipping. Some will agree and others don't care. I'd be interested to know what kind of damage can occur from improper pressing, to be sure, but more as an educational point than as a reason not to bid -- I assume all HG books have been pressed anyway.

 

All that said, posting criticism of a book in someone's sales thread on the Boards is poor form; in that instance, silence is golden and let the books and prices speak for themselves.

 

Dan

 

Dan, while I agree with you for the most part, the statement about pressing the books too hard and creating the damage (it was not expressed as an opinion, it was expressed as a fact, which it wasn't) did create a bit of a stir and cause at lease one or two other board members to accept it as factual.

 

I honestly don't see it on that ish, at least not to the degree that it's apparent on the ones I mentioned earlier and others, like ish 3. Somebody ought to go a little easier on applying the pressure, if you know what I mean.

 

I've been noticing the impacted staple phenomenon on many uber graded books lately. I didn't realize this can be a result of pressing. I'm not sure of the physics involved as the press is applying a vertical pressure. I guess the pressure is moving the paper away from the staple ? I'm disappointed CGC does not deduct more for this serious, self afflicted flaw. It is rather fugly and does not look natural.

 

At least one of those board members (bomber-bob) is a high grade Silver Age collector who doesn't like books that were poorly pressed and would likely avoid bidding based on the poor information presented.

 

I'll tell you from my experience as a dealer, that even though only one or two people post on here that they don't like something about a book, there are many people who read these posts, form opinions based on what they read here and act on what they read on these boards. In this day and internet age, internet chatter can and does greatly affect the outcome of retail sales (comic book or not). Fads, trends, etc are all created through internet chatter.

 

It's for that reason that Foolkiller's, MCMiles and other's posts on presenting something as a matter of opinion or fact is important to keep the message clean. That is very different than censorship.

 

I think that is what Dale meant, at least in part, by respecting people's books. If you know something to be fact, then support it. If it's not fact, then state it as just an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

 

[joeypost]

Lots of speculation here from people who haven't seen the books in person. I'm one of two board members that did for certain.

 

At least 3 of the books have small vertical stress lines running parallel to the spine that begin at one of the staples. To the two board members who saw the comics, this wear appeared pressure related and not reading wear. It potentially could have been caused from stacking, and so I wondered in an earlier post if it may instead have been caused by pressing. I also mentioned in the same post that several of the Curators were stunning examples, a view strengthened by this mornings' look at the entire slabbed run. The dialog about pressure related wear was helpful, in that Joeypost was able to confirm that the issues with indented staples could not have gotten that way from a professional pressing. I haven't seen anybody address the origin of the vertical stress lines.

 

The example of an impacted staple I posted is from the FF#4, which I did not consider to be pressure related, but instead a type of production defect that to me detracts from the eye appeal of the comic, and should also be factored into the numerical grade as is done for other serious production defects. Others who saw the books in person can post their own opinions about the grades assigned to the run overall and to the issues with indented staples in particular - needless to say, it was a major topic of conversation today.

 

As for suppressing discussion that might influence auction results, that's a big can of worms. Is it only negative opinions that ought to be suppressed, or should the laudatory ones like the kinds that started this thread off be suppressed too, since after all both types could potentially influence an opinion of a potential buyer? It's hard to see how this type of censorship helps the hobby or promotes free exchange on the boards.

 

The Curator books did very well at auction today (about three quarters of a million in sales), and it's quite likely that this particular thread had only a positive effect on the results.

 

Finally, the auction overall was amazing: the Billy Wright books fetched for his heirs over $3.5 million alone, and by 6 pm the overall haul was around $7 million.

 

How deep was the stress line? Could be from raised ink on the interior cover...could be from a piece of release paper shifting. Without seeing the book in-hand I am only speculating as to why the line is there.

[VintageComics]

 

At least 3 of the books have small vertical stress lines running parallel to the spine that begin at one of the staples. To the two board members who saw the comics, this wear appeared pressure related and not reading wear. It potentially could have been caused from stacking, and so I wondered in an earlier post if it may instead have been caused by pressing. I also mentioned in the same post that several of the Curators were stunning examples, a view strengthened by this mornings' look at the entire slabbed run. The dialog about pressure related wear was helpful, in that Joeypost was able to confirm that the issues with indented staples could not have gotten that way from a professional pressing. I haven't seen anybody address the origin of the vertical stress lines.

 

 

How deep was the stress line? Could be from raised ink on the interior cover...could be from a piece of release paper shifting. Without seeing the book in-hand I am only speculating as to why the line is there.

 

Which issue numbers had the vertical stress lines?

 

I've seen them on many mid 1960's books, if you are talking about what I think you're talking about. I noticed them on a few books from that original owner collection I picked up a couple of years ago.

[namisgr]

The 6, 11, and 13 for starters.

[VintageComics]

The 6, 11, and 13 for starters.

 

And FF #12 (seems to be very common on that book).

 

Can't say for sure what causes it but I do know that Marvel inks were very brittle in the early to mid 1960's and then for some reason they changed their ink and paper in the late 1960's.

 

I always thought this cracking was just production or storage related.

 

 

[MasterChief]

The 6, 11, and 13 for starters.

 

And FF #12 (seems to be very common on that book).

 

Can't say for sure what causes it but I do know that Marvel inks were very brittle in the early to mid 1960's and then for some reason they changed their ink and paper in the late 1960's.

 

I always thought this cracking was just production or storage related.

 

 

Is that fact or speculation?

 

And that's a serious question, mind you.

 

As I am very much interested in the Sparta printing process, since, if I remember

correctly, the company was being used by both Marvel and DC during the late 60s.

 

Are the defects in question also apparent on DC publications during the time

period, which might then tie them to the production process?

 

[VintageComics]

The 6, 11, and 13 for starters.

 

And FF #12 (seems to be very common on that book).

 

Can't say for sure what causes it but I do know that Marvel inks were very brittle in the early to mid 1960's and then for some reason they changed their ink and paper in the late 1960's.

 

I always thought this cracking was just production or storage related.

 

 

Is that fact or speculation?

 

And that's a serious question, mind you.

 

As I am very much interested in the Sparta printing process, since, if I remember

correctly, the company was being used by both Marvel and DC during the late 60s.

 

Are the defects in question also apparent on DC publications during the time

period, which might then tie them to the production process?

 

In my experience, DC's and Marvels from the same time period (early to mid 1960's) use two different types of paper and ink. I believe Marvel inks and paper was inferior to DC's during this period. In fact, Marvels quality of production was terrible. Books were off centre, cut on angles and had all kinds of production defects like chipping, wrinkles, cracked inks, etc.

 

I don't know how or why, but I can just tell you that they look and feel different up close and also age and react differently to wear and handling.

 

Marvel inks are prone to cracking, especially blacks (and dark blues and purples). I have also heard that Yellow was a very brittle colour on Marvel covers.

 

Also, when Marvels are stored in warmer temperatures interior inks separate and oil from the cheaper inks seeps into the covers creating that halo effect that you see on so many SA Marvels.

 

Early to mid 1960's DC's on the other hand are almost impervious to all of these production defects.

 

At some point around the mid to late 1960's Marvel's production quality improved...inks didn't crack and paper had less production defects on the books.

 

That must be about the time they changed something...possibly being printed at Sparta as the books rivalled DC in quality of production.

 

These are just theories made by my observations.

 

[MasterChief]

The 6, 11, and 13 for starters.

 

And FF #12 (seems to be very common on that book).

 

Can't say for sure what causes it but I do know that Marvel inks were very brittle in the early to mid 1960's and then for some reason they changed their ink and paper in the late 1960's.

 

I always thought this cracking was just production or storage related.

 

 

Is that fact or speculation?

 

And that's a serious question, mind you.

 

As I am very much interested in the Sparta printing process, since, if I remember

correctly, the company was being used by both Marvel and DC during the late 60s.

 

Are the defects in question also apparent on DC publications during the time

period, which might then tie them to the production process?

 

In my experience, DC's and Marvels from the same time period (early to mid 1960's) use two different types of paper and ink. I believe Marvel inks and paper was inferior to DC's during this period. In fact, Marvels quality of production was terrible. Books were off centre, cut on angles and had all kinds of production defects like chipping, wrinkles, cracked inks, etc.

 

I don't know how or why, but I can just tell you that they look and feel different up close and also age and react differently to wear and handling.

 

Marvel inks are prone to cracking, especially blacks (and dark blues and purples). I have also heard that Yellow was a very brittle colour on Marvel covers.

 

Also, when Marvels are stored in warmer temperatures interior inks separate and oil from the cheaper inks seeps into the covers creating that halo effect that you see on so many SA Marvels.

 

Early to mid 1960's DC's on the other hand are almost impervious to all of these production defects.

 

At some point around the mid to late 1960's Marvel's production quality improved...inks didn't crack and paper had less production defects on the books.

 

That must be about the time they changed something...possibly being printed at Sparta as the books rivalled DC in quality of production.

 

These are just theories made by my observations.

 

 

Okay. Thanks. I think I got it.

 

The theories in your prose are worthy of consideration, as are others in this thread.

 

Being that I am a student of study (if there is such a thing in our Hobby), I guess I was hoping for a point of reference that would validate your statement that "Marvel changed their ink and paper in the late 1960's".

 

If you ever run across such supporting documentation pls keep me in mind. As I am very much interested in the printers (World Color, Eastern Color, Sparta, Curtiss Way, etc.) and the production processes they used to produce comic books for the Big Two.

 

(thumbs u

 

 

 

[Aman619]

around 1968! you can see the month they switched. covers are much glossier.

[tth2]

In my experience, DC's and Marvels from the same time period (early to mid 1960's) use two different types of paper and ink. I believe Marvel inks and paper was inferior to DC's during this period. In fact, Marvels quality of production was terrible. Books were off centre, cut on angles and had all kinds of production defects like chipping, wrinkles, cracked inks, etc.

And then in the 1970s, Marvel QP got even worse!

[tth2]

around 1968! you can see the month they switched. covers are much glossier.

I've seen very glossy Marvel covers from well before 1968. The Western Penn DD #2 and Sgt Fury #4 that I owned were just ridiculous and as good as any 1968 books that I've seen. And several non-pedigree Marvels from 1966 or so that I've owned had ridiculous gloss too.

[r100comics]

Am I the only one that thinks that DC's of this period were more susceptible to popped staples ? What would account for this, weaker paper, tighter staples ?

 

I've had some terrible luck with this on otherwise HG DC's from the early to mid 1960's.

 

 

[VintageComics]

The theories in your prose are worthy of consideration, as are others in this thread.

 

Being that I am a student of study (if there is such a thing in our Hobby), I guess I was hoping for a point of reference that would validate your statement that "Marvel changed their ink and paper in the late 1960's".

 

If you ever run across such supporting documentation pls keep me in mind. As I am very much interested in the printers (World Color, Eastern Color, Sparta, Curtiss Way, etc.) and the production processes they used to produce comic books for the Big Two.

 

(thumbs u

 

 

 

I've not done a lot of reading on the topic and can only go by my experiences in handling the books.

 

There are several board members that are probably quite knowledgeable on the subject.

 

If I remember correctly, DiceX worked at the Sparta plant and might be able to fill in the blanks a little.

 

Also, rodan57 and KirbyJack (I think that is how you spell their board names) seem to be well read on Marvel history (I know rodan57 is quite the historian on the subject) and so maybe they can shed some light on the subject.

 

This could be a terrific discussion.

 

[VintageComics]

around 1968! you can see the month they switched. covers are much glossier.

 

I could be wrong but I believe there was a definite change after the mid 1960's and there may have been more than one change...Amazing Spider-man #58 stands out to me as an issue where something changed...up until that issue, Marvel chipping was very prevalent (issue #57 always has it even in high grade and many other earlier issues had it) and then after issue #57 the edges of the books became sharp and straight. There just seemed to be less chipping and inks and paper felt different. Co-incidentally, that issue (#58) is dated March 1968 acc. to the GCD which might be right in line with them switching methods of production or switching to Sparta.

 

The may have also had an ink change a little later but at this point, without handling some of the books from that period I can't say for certain.

 

In my experience, DC's and Marvels from the same time period (early to mid 1960's) use two different types of paper and ink. I believe Marvel inks and paper was inferior to DC's during this period. In fact, Marvels quality of production was terrible. Books were off centre, cut on angles and had all kinds of production defects like chipping, wrinkles, cracked inks, etc.

And then in the 1970s, Marvel QP got even worse!

 

Yup, the bronze age went off the rails as far as centring was concerned although ink quality seemed high as it didn't crack like the early 1960's. Paper did seem a little thinner though.

[tth2]

Yup, the bronze age went off the rails as far as centring was concerned although ink quality seemed high as it didn't crack like the early 1960's.

The ink used in the BA wasn`t as lustrous as the ink in the SA. Those Marvel dark blue, purple and green covers from the mid-60s were amazing.

[Hammerhead]

Dale, you credit my comments in this thread with far more influence than they actually have. Which in this case is none whatsoever

 

agree. buyers that are willing to shell out that amount of cabbage don't care. BS effin' D!

 

I have to agree with you guys here. This is a comic book message board and speculating happens on a regular basis. If you don't like or agree with the thread maybe you need to move on.

[VintageComics]

Yup, the bronze age went off the rails as far as centring was concerned although ink quality seemed high as it didn't crack like the early 1960's.

The ink used in the BA wasn`t as lustrous as the ink in the SA. Those Marvel dark blue, purple and green covers from the mid-60s were amazing.

 

Good point. Bronze colour wasn't as bright and deep but seemed to handle the curvature of the spine better than the SA covers.

 

 

[Hammerhead]

around 1968! you can see the month they switched. covers are much glossier.

 

I could be wrong but I believe there was a definite change after the mid 1960's and there may have been more than one change...Amazing Spider-man #58 stands out to me as an issue where something changed...up until that issue, Marvel chipping was very prevalent (issue #57 always has it even in high grade and many other earlier issues had it) and then after issue #57 the edges of the books became sharp and straight. There just seemed to be less chipping and inks and paper felt different. Co-incidentally, that issue (#58) is dated March 1968 acc. to the GCD which might be right in line with them switching methods of production or switching to Sparta.

 

The may have also had an ink change a little later but at this point, without handling some of the books from that period I can't say for certain.

 

In my experience, DC's and Marvels from the same time period (early to mid 1960's) use two different types of paper and ink. I believe Marvel inks and paper was inferior to DC's during this period. In fact, Marvels quality of production was terrible. Books were off centre, cut on angles and had all kinds of production defects like chipping, wrinkles, cracked inks, etc.

And then in the 1970s, Marvel QP got even worse!

 

Yup, the bronze age went off the rails as far as centring was concerned although ink quality seemed high as it didn't crack like the early 1960's. Paper did seem a little thinner though.

 

Very interesting....

[Bomber-Bob]

Still curious about the impacted staple phenom, I went through hundreds of my books last night, both raw and slabbed, and I could honestly only find one book,

a slabbed Twin Cities, that had one staple impacted.

Since so many of the FF Curators had this flaw, what the heck happened ? Recognizing the physics of pressing, I agree that it doesn't seem likely to be the cause. I just don't buy into the bindery argument as we would be seeing lots more of this on FF's. I'm baffled. BTW, before this thread I didn't even know this flaw had a name. For the record, I did not bid on these books and not because of Bob Namisgr's comments.