• 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.

Another Great Reason to NEVER buy a PGX Book or deal with them
0

Started by bcc,

141 posts in this topic

kav

kav

Posted
Posted

ps any book with a 'stan lee' sig not authenticated at time of signing by CGC is just graffiti-anyone can forge that sig with a litttle practice and a lightbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
porky

porky

Posted
Posted
I have a PGX ASM 3 that was graded 6.0 back in 2006. Maybe I should CPR to CGC and get away from the PGX stigma. hm

 

 

i had a few books graded PGX before realizing my mistake. they were all upgraded by going CGC. just gotta worry about possible undetected resto.

 

ge8tFrN.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rjpb

rjpb

Posted
Posted
ps any book with a 'stan lee' sig not authenticated at time of signing by CGC is just graffiti-anyone can forge that sig with a litttle practice and a lightbox.

 

I'm really starting to hate Stan Lee sigs, authenticated or not, especially when they are in black sharpie. It's not a particularly attractive signature to begin with and it's become so ubiquitous as to become annoying, especially on keys and high grade silver. I'm of the philosophy if it's your book you can do what you want, and if you want it signed then do it, but it's getting to the point where so many keys are sporting a Stan Lee sig that folks are going to be paying a premium for copies without them.

 

If I was going to own one, I'd take something discrete like the ToS #39 someone posted with a small Stan Lee '75 signature on the cover, unauthenticated as it may be, over an SS series with a big fat sharpie scrawl on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goldust40

goldust40

Posted
Posted
ps any book with a 'stan lee' sig not authenticated at time of signing by CGC is just graffiti-anyone can forge that sig with a litttle practice and a lightbox.

 

I'm really starting to hate Stan Lee sigs, authenticated or not, especially when they are in black sharpie. It's not a particularly attractive signature to begin with and it's become so ubiquitous as to become annoying, especially on keys and high grade silver. I'm of the philosophy if it's your book you can do what you want, and if you want it signed then do it, but it's getting to the point where so many keys are sporting a Stan Lee sig that folks are going to be paying a premium for copies without them.

 

I have often wondered when that tipping point would be reached. I also have wondered what future generations of comic collectors will think (assuming there are any) about the 2010s craze for adorning so many important comic books with such daubings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Comicopolis

Comicopolis

Posted
Posted
ps any book with a 'stan lee' sig not authenticated at time of signing by CGC is just graffiti-anyone can forge that sig with a litttle practice and a lightbox.

 

I'm really starting to hate Stan Lee sigs, authenticated or not, especially when they are in black sharpie. It's not a particularly attractive signature to begin with and it's become so ubiquitous as to become annoying, especially on keys and high grade silver. I'm of the philosophy if it's your book you can do what you want, and if you want it signed then do it, but it's getting to the point where so many keys are sporting a Stan Lee sig that folks are going to be paying a premium for copies without them.

 

I have often wondered when that tipping point would be reached. I also have wondered what future generations of comic collectors will think (assuming there are any) about the 2010s craze for adorning so many important comic books with such daubings.

 

Scribbles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Sneeze

Mr Sneeze

Posted
Posted
ps any book with a 'stan lee' sig not authenticated at time of signing by CGC is just graffiti-anyone can forge that sig with a litttle practice and a lightbox.

 

I'm really starting to hate Stan Lee sigs, authenticated or not, especially when they are in black sharpie. It's not a particularly attractive signature to begin with and it's become so ubiquitous as to become annoying, especially on keys and high grade silver. I'm of the philosophy if it's your book you can do what you want, and if you want it signed then do it, but it's getting to the point where so many keys are sporting a Stan Lee sig that folks are going to be paying a premium for copies without them.

 

I have often wondered when that tipping point would be reached. I also have wondered what future generations of comic collectors will think (assuming there are any) about the 2010s craze for adorning so many important comic books with such daubings.

Good point!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimbo_707

jimbo_707

Posted
Posted
I have a PGX ASM 3 that was graded 6.0 back in 2006. Maybe I should CPR to CGC and get away from the PGX stigma. hm

 

I have only one PGX book, also from 2006, and I agree with the grade of 8.5 on that one (based on what I can see through the slab). I have no idea how good they were at detecting restoration back then.

 

Does anyone know when Ryan Elliot started working for PGX?

 

Catman30A.jpg

Catman30Back.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gadzukes

gadzukes

Posted
Posted (edited)
This book was purchased at WW Austin at my booth and was a CGC 4.0

Cracked out, signed by Stan and then graded by PGX.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Incredible-HULK-1-PGX-7-0-Signature-Edition-Stan-Lee-Auto-/310810179888?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item485dbaf930

 

bcc, the 3 comics he cracked open and regraded all looked undergraded by cgc.

DJBrady only shows the front covers on his auctions so I wonder if there's damage on the back covers. Do you remember?

 

I guess part of his methodology is to look over hundreds of slabs with an eye for good "front cover" appeal. To me, looking at his pics, the JIM 83 & the DD 1 look like they could actually pass for the grades he gave them (which makes me think they must have flawed back covers), the Hulk 1 he's selling doesn't come close to a 7.0, but it looks like it could be a 5.0 or 5.5 judging from the front cover.

 

If you have pics of the 3 comics in their CGC slabs I would love to see them, especially the back covers.

 

BTW.... I am SO grateful for these boards educating me about crooks like Djbrady.

Edited by gadzukes
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mschmidt

mschmidt

Posted
Posted
This book was purchased at WW Austin at my booth and was a CGC 4.0

Cracked out, signed by Stan and then graded by PGX.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Incredible-HULK-1-PGX-7-0-Signature-Edition-Stan-Lee-Auto-/310810179888?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item485dbaf930

 

bcc, the 3 comics he cracked open and regraded all looked undergraded by cgc.

DJBrady only shows the front covers on his auctions so I wonder if there's damage on the back covers. Do you remember?

 

I guess part of his methodology is to look over hundreds of slabs with an eye for good "front cover" appeal. To me, looking at his pics, the JIM 83 & the DD 1 look like they could actually pass for the grades he gave them (which makes me think they must have flawed back covers), the Hulk 1 he's selling doesn't come close to a 7.0, but it looks like it could be a 5.0 or 5.5 judging from the front cover..

 

It's far more likely these comics have flaws that aren't immediately visible on the front cover and were accurately graded by CGC ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony S

Tony S

Posted
Posted
This book was purchased at WW Austin at my booth and was a CGC 4.0

Cracked out, signed by Stan and then graded by PGX.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Incredible-HULK-1-PGX-7-0-Signature-Edition-Stan-Lee-Auto-/310810179888?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item485dbaf930

 

bcc, the 3 comics he cracked open and regraded all looked undergraded by cgc.

DJBrady only shows the front covers on his auctions so I wonder if there's damage on the back covers. Do you remember?

 

I guess part of his methodology is to look over hundreds of slabs with an eye for good "front cover" appeal. To me, looking at his pics, the JIM 83 & the DD 1 look like they could actually pass for the grades he gave them (which makes me think they must have flawed back covers), the Hulk 1 he's selling doesn't come close to a 7.0, but it looks like it could be a 5.0 or 5.5 judging from the front cover.

 

If you have pics of the 3 comics in their CGC slabs I would love to see them, especially the back covers.

 

BTW.... I am SO grateful for these boards educating me about crooks like Djbrady.

 

I too think this is part of Ryan's game plan - looking for CGC graded books with exceptional eye appeal for the grade. I'm also fairly sure he understands and uses to his advantage some of the differences between CGC and PGX's grading. For instance I have held in my hand a Shadow 1 PGX 9.8 that clearly had staples that had rust cleaned off them. PGX doesn't have a "qualified" label, which is what CGC would have given the book.

 

The Hulk 1 is laughably overgraded at 7.0, but it looks better than 4.0. The JIM 83 initially looks like it could be 6.5. If you enlarge the scan (the only scan) there is a faint diagonal color breaking crease that starts at the bottom left. It is clearly visible in the dark grey bricks, but then seems to disappear in the red banner on up. My guess is in hand you might be able to make out a bit more of this crease. MAYBE I see it very, very faintly in the building behind Thor's leg.

 

The deal with such a crease is I've seen CGC give books like this grades vary from 5.0 to 6.5, depending on how faint and how long the crease is. I have a CGC 6.5 right now with a very faint sub crease that is similar, but not the same. Just barely visible for a couple of inches at the bottom then pretty much disappears. Since the crease on this JIM 83 is easily viewed for a couple of inches, I think that is the why of the 5.0. So 5.0 is probably the more accurate grade. To me, the real pity is that this JIM 83 could likley have been upgraded with CGC. If I had it in hand at a show I would have had Stan sign down where the color breaking crease shows. It is a good place for a signature and Stan slants his signature up just like the crease. More than a few books have been upgraded just by having him sign over such a defect.

 

What is also interesting is that these shenanigans don't always pay off for them (IRyan and Brady are two different people. What isn't know is if Ryan just sells under his friend Brady's account) But it's not unusual for their books sell for substantially less than the price it would have gotten in a CGC holder.

 

 

jimbo_707

I have only one PGX book, also from 2006, and I agree with the grade of 8.5 on that one (based on what I can see through the slab). I have no idea how good they were at detecting restoration back then.

 

Does anyone know when Ryan Elliot started working for PGX?

 

If you don't dismiss purchasing a PGX graded book out of hand and actually look at any given book you might like, there are some deals to be had. It's no secret that many books graded by PGX in their early years are strictly graded. 2005 and 2006 are "good" years.

 

I too would be interested in knowing when Ryan Elliott became associated with PGX. If you ask, you will be told he does not work for them.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0
Go to topic listing