• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

How Does This Book Get a 9.8 Yellow Label?

51 posts in this topic

The books were signed before being sealed, thus making them "new" or "unopened". So basically, you had 2 versions of the comic printed - books with sigs, books without - but they would both be viewed with the same CGC criteria. Think of it as an alternate cover.

 

It already is an alternate cover. The regular cover had a blue logo, and the signed cover had a black logo. Every other black logo copy that has been submitted for grading has received a green "qualified" label. Stan Lee signing it in front of a CAW or CGC employee shouldn't somehow magically change how the "defect" (Jonathan Hickman autograph) is treated.

 

CGC should reslab those as blue. Is there a picture of said green label? Does it call out that its a signed edition?

 

No, they shouldn't. It's a book with an unverified cover signature which means it belongs in a green slab.

 

If you look at the CGC census, all the other copies of the "signed edition" of this book have the correct green labels.

 

Michael,

 

CGC is viewing the cover with the sig on it as a signed edition, similar to a variant. If they kept it as a green, when you add a sig to it, some graders might drop the grade on it because of the signature (unlike this case).

 

Look at the census - they are slabbing this book with a green label due to the unverified cover signature. Again, this is simply a mistake from CGC's side.

 

The fact that this variant is known as the "signed edition" doesn't mean that CGC is suddenly going to ignore a signature they didn't witness - if that was the case, all the Dynamic Forces signed editions would be eligible for blue labels (which they aren't).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Book was a 9.6 with the first signature and message on it from Betsy Russel, I decide months later to add Cary Elwes to it, but his signature was not verified so the book dropped from a 9.6 to 9.0. If he sees this thread, Andy (GACollectibles) can verify this info.

 

I know it's early and I haven't finished my coffee, but how was this book cracked out of a yellow slab, signed again without SS authentication, and then allowed to receive the yellow label again? Once the slab is cracked, unless done by a CAW/facilitator/CGC employee, doesn't the authenticity guarantee become null and void and the book would get a green label?

 

It was done by a CAW.

 

Bizarre then that the second signature is not verified. Seeing as how the book would have to remain with the CAW the entire time, what would be the thinking in not filling out the paperwork or whatever to have it verified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Book was a 9.6 with the first signature and message on it from Betsy Russel, I decide months later to add Cary Elwes to it, but his signature was not verified so the book dropped from a 9.6 to 9.0. If he sees this thread, Andy (GACollectibles) can verify this info.

 

I know it's early and I haven't finished my coffee, but how was this book cracked out of a yellow slab, signed again without SS authentication, and then allowed to receive the yellow label again? Once the slab is cracked, unless done by a CAW/facilitator/CGC employee, doesn't the authenticity guarantee become null and void and the book would get a green label?

 

It was done by a CAW.

 

Bizarre then that the second signature is not verified. Seeing as how the book would have to remain with the CAW the entire time, what would be the thinking in not filling out the paperwork or whatever to have it verified?

 

Andy (GACollectibles) could explain it better since he was the facilitator I sent it to, but what he told me was there was an issue with CGC's witnessing of the books and CGC invalidated the Signature Series status for the entire event (Monster-Mania August 19-21, 2011). I was reimbursed for the insured value of the book and the autograph fee at the time. Kind of an odd situation. I doubt it comes up very often.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like a Catch-22.

 

Yes, we acknowledge the Signature Edition, but we don't necessarily acknowledge the signature.

 

Any other Signed Edition books like that?

 

You're missing the point.

 

This is a variant known as the "signed edition" - which is no different than the "chrome edition", the "gold foil variant", the "sketch edition" or the "ultra-secret sure to be worth a fortune 1:2000 giant turtle signed by Gandhi variant".

 

CGC is acknowledging that this book, to distinguish it from the regular edition, has a special name which is then put on the label. That's it. The fact that this variant happens to be signed is irrelevant - it's an unverified cover signature which means green label or blue label with grade drop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like a Catch-22.

 

Yes, we acknowledge the Signature Edition, but we don't necessarily acknowledge the signature.

 

Any other Signed Edition books like that?

 

You're missing the point.

 

This is a variant known as the "signed edition" - which is no different than the "chrome edition", the "gold foil variant", the "sketch edition" or the "ultra-secret sure to be worth a fortune 1:2000 giant turtle signed by Gandhi variant".

 

CGC is acknowledging that this book, to distinguish it from the regular edition, has a special name which is then put on the label. That's it. The fact that this variant happens to be signed is irrelevant - it's an unverified cover signature which means green label or blue label with grade drop.

 

My gripe isn't with distinguishing them, it's labeling it "Signed Edition". They could have labeled it black logo edition. I have seen a few Qualified Dynamic Forces Signature slabs and none of them said "Signed Edition". Now, I haven't seen an example of one getting an SS brand, so I am willing to be wrong. Just saying the verbiage is interesting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites