The Lions Den Posted June 16, 2021 Share Posted June 16, 2021 On 5/23/2021 at 8:47 AM, CDNComix said: There's still debate whether if Warren actually "litho printed" the ashcan or used some other means available to publishers backs in the mid-60s. Some assume that the ashcan was produced through some other means and draw the conclusion that is the main why the CGC will not certify a copy - even though they certify other photo copied books from around the same era. CGC declined certifying the Eerie ashcan because the risk outweighed the reward... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lions Den Posted June 16, 2021 Share Posted June 16, 2021 On 6/14/2021 at 9:42 PM, oakman29 said: The company without a name grading these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lions Den Posted June 16, 2021 Share Posted June 16, 2021 15 hours ago, N e r V said: I emailed them along with CGC a few years ago because I wanted to see if I could get my “original” blue staple counterfeit in a slab. You could argue all day about what an original ashcan was but it shouldn’t have been an issue to get the blue staple counterfeit copy in a slab I thought (mistakenly). “Hi Brett, Unfortunately we do not grade these because they are easily reproducible. The CBCS Team” It looks like since then they are putting them in a generic case with basic information. They actually have 2 copies in slabs now a 9.4 and a 9.2. I think I’ll check into them again to see if they’ll put mine in a slab noting it as the blue staple counterfeit. Maybe I’ll be challenged for trying to pass off a counterfeit of a counterfeit and they’ll refuse… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N e r V Posted June 16, 2021 Share Posted June 16, 2021 58 minutes ago, The Lions Den said: CGC declined certifying the Eerie ashcan because the risk outweighed the reward... I think what I found puzzling or at least highly inconsistent isn’t that they wouldn’t grade an Eerie #1 due to them thinking it might be to easy to counterfeit, that’s a business decision for sure you could make. What I do find extremely illogical from a business point if that’s your position is why are you grading both original and counterfeit Cerebus #1’s? Having seen both original and counterfeit copies of Eerie #1 and Cerebus #1 are you going to sit there and tell me it’s possible to do a perfect copy of Eerie #1 and not possible to do a perfect Cerebus #1 if that’s your legitimate concern? That’s nonsense. It’s worse now with Cerebus since #1 is no longer the only issue counterfeited in that series. Seriously if you are going to do a counterfeit why waste your time on Eerie #1’s vs doing a Cerebus #1? It’s like counterfeiting a one dollar bill vs a twenty… Either way my copy is a established original counterfeit blue staples and all so all I wanted was to slab it because I really do dig that cover. If only Creepy #2 had it as a back cover to go along with its killer black front cover. I’m not sure the other guys will slab a real counterfeit too but I’m sure going to ask… The Lions Den 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N e r V Posted June 16, 2021 Share Posted June 16, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Lions Den said: CGC declined certifying the Eerie ashcan because the risk outweighed the reward... Felt the same way about Hook…er, girls when stationed abroad… Edited June 16, 2021 by N e r V jimjum12, onlyweaknesskryptonite and Randall Dowling 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lions Den Posted June 16, 2021 Share Posted June 16, 2021 17 minutes ago, N e r V said: I think what I found puzzling or at least highly inconsistent isn’t that they wouldn’t grade an Eerie #1 due to them thinking it might be to easy to counterfeit, that’s a business decision for sure you could make. What I do find extremely illogical from a business point if that’s your position is why are you grading both original and counterfeit Cerebus #1’s? Having seen both original and counterfeit copies of Eerie #1 and Cerebus #1 are you going to sit there and tell me it’s possible to do a perfect copy of Eerie #1 and not possible to do a perfect Cerebus #1 if that’s your legitimate concern? That’s nonsense. It’s worse now with Cerebus since #1 is no longer the only issue counterfeited in that series. Seriously if you are going to do a counterfeit why waste your time on Eerie #1’s vs doing a Cerebus #1? It’s like counterfeiting a one dollar bill vs a twenty… Oh, it's puzzling...especially considering that they had the right people in place at the time and they were all willing to move forward with it... jimjum12 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lions Den Posted June 16, 2021 Share Posted June 16, 2021 25 minutes ago, N e r V said: Felt the same way about Hook…er, girls when stationed abroad… I see what you did there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lions Den Posted June 16, 2021 Share Posted June 16, 2021 12 hours ago, CDNComix said: I will get a pro to rule on how it was printed, do some measurements especially staple placement, check if the paper fluoscences, etc. Once some information is in hand and basic unknowns cleared up, then I would like to approach the CGC about finally accepting these for certification. There should be no reason why litho all B&W could not be, especially when they already certify (many, many) books that are known to be produced by their creator via photocopy. Also I would be willing to lend them the Pearson copy if it helped to change their mind on the policy. I sincerely hope they decide to do it, but they are extremely busy right now, and they may be hesitant to take on more responsibility... jimjum12 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lions Den Posted June 16, 2021 Share Posted June 16, 2021 11 hours ago, jimjum12 said: Any dogs come around here, I put their little arses to work... GOD BLESS.... -jimbo(a friend of jesus) WOW jimjum12 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N e r V Posted June 16, 2021 Share Posted June 16, 2021 1 hour ago, The Lions Den said: Oh, it's puzzling...especially considering that they had the right people in place at the time and they were all willing to move forward with it... I think you were right though that Eerie #1’s are scarce enough that it wasn’t worth the trouble. Cerebus on the other hand is going for bank these days and Cerebus #1 and others in the run will continue to pop up and get slabbed thanks to counterfeiting.. The Lions Den 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N e r V Posted June 16, 2021 Share Posted June 16, 2021 12 hours ago, jimjum12 said: Any dogs come around here, I put their little arses to work... GOD BLESS.... -jimbo(a friend of jesus) 1 hour ago, The Lions Den said: WOW I had to do a double take there JimJum. It looked like you were holding a bong and those were pizza boxes at a quick glance… The Lions Den, Rip and onlyweaknesskryptonite 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimjum12 Posted June 16, 2021 Share Posted June 16, 2021 52 minutes ago, N e r V said: I had to do a double take there JimJum. It looked like you were holding a bong and those were pizza boxes at a quick glance… ... You would have to find some much older photos to see that .... GOD BLESS.... -jimbo(a friend of jesus) Randall Dowling and oakman29 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wpbooks01 Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 I want to hear more about Cerebus, the fakes that aren't #1, and why there is interest in the series now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDNComix Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 (edited) 13 hours ago, N e r V said: 14 hours ago, The Lions Den said: CGC declined certifying the Eerie ashcan because the risk outweighed the reward... I think what I found puzzling or at least highly inconsistent isn’t that they wouldn’t grade an Eerie #1 due to them thinking it might be to easy to counterfeit, that’s a business decision for sure you could make. What I do find extremely illogical from a business point if that’s your position is why are you grading both original and counterfeit Cerebus #1’s? Having seen both original and counterfeit copies of Eerie #1 and Cerebus #1 are you going to sit there and tell me it’s possible to do a perfect copy of Eerie #1 and not possible to do a perfect Cerebus #1 if that’s your legitimate concern? That’s nonsense. It’s worse now with Cerebus since #1 is no longer the only issue counterfeited in that series. Seriously if you are going to do a counterfeit why waste your time on Eerie #1’s vs doing a Cerebus #1? It’s like counterfeiting a one dollar bill vs a twenty… Either way my copy is a established original counterfeit blue staples and all so all I wanted was to slab it because I really do dig that cover. If only Creepy #2 had it as a back cover to go along with its killer black front cover. I’m not sure the other guys will slab a real counterfeit too but I’m sure going to ask… To me, the big three big comic stories invloving a known infamous fake edition are the: Eerie ashcan, Cerebus #1 and Love and Rockets #1. The CGC currently certifies two of the the three. Why not the third and by far most important book? In addition, they do a pretty good job navigating the world of undergrounds and all of the printings, corresponding tells and changes with regard to information over time. I would have thought certifying undergrounds would be too small pototes and high risk for the CGC to bother and yet they do. To do a proper job of certifying an underground, the certifying company has to drill down and first determine which printing is the book they are about to grade and certify. It does not help us (ug collectors) if they grade a copy of "Big A*s Comix #1" without identfying which printing it is (tricky to do), so they do and label it as such. A member of another forum, recently disciovered the real first printing of "Collected Cheech Wizard" nearly fourty years since it was published in the first underground collecting guide. Our collecting community is not up in arms that the CGC has been certifying second printings as first printings up to this point. We recognize that they have been doing the best they can will the most current infomation available to them. There so many examples of "undergrounds" certified by the CGC that have been misidentified and are basically encapuslated mislabelled mistakes that all of the world can see. The underground community does not care because it understands the challenge, so why should the CGC fear the risk with regard to the ashcan? The other two non-CGCs also certify undergrounds and they are a disaster maybe not grading wise, but defintiely when it comes to the identification of the edition/printing. Zap Comix #2 as a true print (miscut heads edition) is worth hundreds and second edition is worth $20. Both of the "others" fail miserably with making this discinction with their certified Zap #2s. So it does not surprise me that one of them is now certifying the ashcan but not providing all of the information on the label. They are purposely "greying out" the issue. If the CGC are to cerify any comic, then they have perform restoration checks (deos the book have colour touch-ups, expert restoration, was it trimmed). I would have thought this would be more challenging to them (has the book been altered for the sake of a higher grade) than a side-by-side comparsion of a ashcan candiate to a master file copy. Edited June 17, 2021 by CDNComix ug18, OtherEric and The Lions Den 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lions Den Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 5 hours ago, CDNComix said: To me, the big three big comic stories invloving a known infamous fake edition are the: Eerie ashcan, Cerebus #1 and Love and Rockets #1. The CGC currently certifies two of the the three. Why not the third and by far most important book? In addition, they do a pretty good job navigating the world of undergrounds and all of the printings, corresponding tells and changes with regard to information over time. I would have thought certifying undergrounds would be too small pototes and high risk for the CGC to bother and yet they do. To do a proper job of certifying an underground, the certifying company has to drill down and first determine which printing is the book they are about to grade and certify. It does not help us (ug collectors) if they grade a copy of "Big A*s Comix #1" without identfying which printing it is (tricky to do), so they do and label it as such. A member of another forum, recently disciovered the real first printing of "Collected Cheech Wizard" nearly fourty years since it was published in the first underground collecting guide. Our collecting community is not up in arms that the CGC has been certifying second printings as first printings up to this point. We recognize that they have been doing the best they can will the most current infomation available to them. There so many examples of "undergrounds" certified by the CGC that have been misidentified and are basically encapuslated mislabelled mistakes that all of the world can see. The underground community does not care because it understands the challenge, so why should the CGC fear the risk with regard to the ashcan? The other two non-CGCs also certify undergrounds and they are a disaster maybe not grading wise, but defintiely when it comes to the identification of the edition/printing. Zap Comix #2 as a true print (miscut heads edition) is worth hundreds and second edition is worth $20. Both of the "others" fail miserably with making this discinction with their certified Zap #2s. So it does not surprise me that one of them is now certifying the ashcan but not providing all of the information on the label. They are purposely "greying out" the issue. If the CGC are to cerify any comic, then they have perform restoration checks (deos the book have colour touch-ups, expert restoration, was it trimmed). I would have thought this would be more challenging to them (has the book been altered for the sake of a higher grade) than a side-by-side comparsion of a ashcan candiate to a master file copy. The process of certifying books like this can get pretty involved---extensive research needs to be done. To make matters more troublesome, this work would likely be undertaken by one person. The bottom line is the graders at CGC have their hands full just trying to keep up with the current demand. So while I wish they had the time and inclination to do it, the reality is they probably won't... Randall Dowling and jimjum12 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N e r V Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 1 hour ago, The Lions Den said: The process of certifying books like this can get pretty involved---extensive research needs to be done. To make matters more troublesome, this work would likely be undertaken by one person. The bottom line is the graders at CGC have their hands full just trying to keep up with the current demand. So while I wish they had the time and inclination to do it, the reality is they probably won't... I have a couple questions I’d like to get from the lions mouth… The decision made on Eerie #1 with CGC I’ve been told now by several people was made by someone who is no longer with them but over at CBCS now which is why they didn’t slab them either until recently. Based on that would you say now that they are slabbing them it’s why the label info. is so generic to “assist” them in case they are wrong? It’s super basic information. Next CGC also slabs all of the DC b&w ashcans. How do they research those given their rarity for legitimacy? Next I’m a big fanzine collector as well and do want to slab some of mine one day. How does CGC research those for possible fakes since I’ve seen a number of b&w in slabs now (see below for examples)? I know some are cheap but there are high dollar value ones too. Finally I’m an original buyer of Cerebus #1. Have several I bought from my local comic shops as a kid when the series first came out as well as SDCC in the late 70’s. I purchased them when they came out and when they had no value yet so there’s zero chance of them being counterfeits. I was there in the early 80’s when the counterfeit first showed up too. Like Eerie #1 the original Cerebus #1 counterfeit came a few years later after the original. Like the Eerie #1 it has differences to separate from the original. Now CGC does both original and counterfeit copies. I had this discussion with another collector who pointed out that Cerebus #1 has a pretty high rate of copies in the census percentage wise being given that it was a fanzine type comic and less collected and kept vs say a mainstream comic like Hulk #181 would have been (Cerebus #1 has about 20% of its printed copies vs Hulk #181 is roughly 5% of its published copies) .They also “claim” they’ve seen counterfeits in original slabs. Not trying to open a can of worms for you but is this (if true) a case of label mixup with original and counterfeits or a possible miss by a grader? Counterfeits have both cover and interior differences. The Lions Den 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wpbooks01 Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 CGC wouldn't slab my Adventures Of Black Eldridge as they said it was too much like an ashcan and could be easily counterfeited, but that was around a decade ago. Think I should try it again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lions Den Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 3 hours ago, N e r V said: I have a couple questions I’d like to get from the lions mouth… The decision made on Eerie #1 with CGC I’ve been told now by several people was made by someone who is no longer with them but over at CBCS now which is why they didn’t slab them either until recently. Based on that would you say now that they are slabbing them it’s why the label info. is so generic to “assist” them in case they are wrong? It’s super basic information. Next CGC also slabs all of the DC b&w ashcans. How do they research those given their rarity for legitimacy? Next I’m a big fanzine collector as well and do want to slab some of mine one day. How does CGC research those for possible fakes since I’ve seen a number of b&w in slabs now (see below for examples)? I know some are cheap but there are high dollar value ones too. Finally I’m an original buyer of Cerebus #1. Have several I bought from my local comic shops as a kid when the series first came out as well as SDCC in the late 70’s. I purchased them when they came out and when they had no value yet so there’s zero chance of them being counterfeits. I was there in the early 80’s when the counterfeit first showed up too. Like Eerie #1 the original Cerebus #1 counterfeit came a few years later after the original. Like the Eerie #1 it has differences to separate from the original. Now CGC does both original and counterfeit copies. I had this discussion with another collector who pointed out that Cerebus #1 has a pretty high rate of copies in the census percentage wise being given that it was a fanzine type comic and less collected and kept vs say a mainstream comic like Hulk #181 would have been (Cerebus #1 has about 20% of its printed copies vs Hulk #181 is roughly 5% of its published copies) .They also “claim” they’ve seen counterfeits in original slabs. Not trying to open a can of worms for you but is this (if true) a case of label mixup with original and counterfeits or a possible miss by a grader? Counterfeits have both cover and interior differences. First, let me say that I think those fanzines you have are pretty awesome...thanks for posting them! Next, the questions you raise are very interesting (and valid) to me. The decision to not grade the Eerie #1 was ultimately made by the folks in charge at the time. And the fact that the other company has ultimately decided to slab them makes me wonder if they're expanding their horizons in order to cash in on the potential profit regardless of knowing the differences between the original edition and the counterfeits. It's a good question, and I think the answer could be in the generic label information. As far as researching ashcans or other rare books, CGC often used to do preliminary research by contacting various collectors with copies of the books and finding out everything they could about those copies. This was an important first step in establishing things like page counts, specific ads or articles, types of paper used and any other interesting or unusual printing information. From this information, a comprehensive spreadsheet could then be developed. Once the spreadsheet was in place, submissions could be taken for those books and additional information could be added. If a counterfeit appeared, it would immediately be compared to the information on file and then it could be treated accordingly (real or fake). CGC employs many folks with different areas of expertise, and it's this diversity of knowledge that makes them very formidable in their overall decisions. That's not to say they don't make mistakes, but I believe they're very good at keeping track of different variants and ashcans. If you have rare fanzines that haven't been graded before, they would either choose to slab them or reject them. A lot depends on the workload at the time and if those books have already been certified before. As you can imagine, it's extremely time consuming to research books for the first time and enter all the required information. And of course they have to be graded and checked for resto as well. And yes, there's always the possibility of a mistake when dealing with any book, but especially when you're dealing with obscure or long out of print fanzines and ashcans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N e r V Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 1 hour ago, The Lions Den said: First, let me say that I think those fanzines you have are pretty awesome...thanks for posting them! Next, the questions you raise are very interesting (and valid) to me. The decision to not grade the Eerie #1 was ultimately made by the folks in charge at the time. And the fact that the other company has ultimately decided to slab them makes me wonder if they're expanding their horizons in order to cash in on the potential profit regardless of knowing the differences between the original edition and the counterfeits. It's a good question, and I think the answer could be in the generic label information. As far as researching ashcans or other rare books, CGC often used to do preliminary research by contacting various collectors with copies of the books and finding out everything they could about those copies. This was an important first step in establishing things like page counts, specific ads or articles, types of paper used and any other interesting or unusual printing information. From this information, a comprehensive spreadsheet could then be developed. Once the spreadsheet was in place, submissions could be taken for those books and additional information could be added. If a counterfeit appeared, it would immediately be compared to the information on file and then it could be treated accordingly (real or fake). CGC employs many folks with different areas of expertise, and it's this diversity of knowledge that makes them very formidable in their overall decisions. That's not to say they don't make mistakes, but I believe they're very good at keeping track of different variants and ashcans. If you have rare fanzines that haven't been graded before, they would either choose to slab them or reject them. A lot depends on the workload at the time and if those books have already been certified before. As you can imagine, it's extremely time consuming to research books for the first time and enter all the required information. And of course they have to be graded and checked for resto as well. And yes, there's always the possibility of a mistake when dealing with any book, but especially when you're dealing with obscure or long out of print fanzines and ashcans... So I’m guessing with future fanzine subs just email them in advance for a yes or no? I sent an email off today to the other bad boys to see since they’re doing Eerie #1’s now if they’d slab my obvious blue staple counterfeit. The only reason they wouldn’t I can think of is it would put them on the spot that if they slab something and label it a counterfeit it means every other copy that isn’t labeled as such must be an original. I can certainly see their caution but I do believe that both they and CGC took far bigger hits in missing restoration on books in the past that ended up with unrestored labels. Micro trimming anyone? Or just missing trimming or other work in the past which resulted in blue labels or books getting higher numbers after being worked on with sketchy procedures. I still have a level of confidence obviously but that type of stuff to me is a far bigger credibility threat than if a perfect counterfeit that people assume exists is out there. An exception might be if the counterfeiting starts happening on a much greater level like cards… The Lions Den 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N e r V Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 Curious too Lions Den what your area of expertise was? Randall Dowling, The Lions Den and chevalmeow 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
