AFA Scandal

[originalisbest]

Action #1 found in wall

 

The Action #1 in question did in fact receive a blue label, as the photos in the link clearly show. It also has the notation "cover detached." It seems that it avoided the GLOD and PLOD by still being very low-grade: 1.5.

 

Sorry for the big photo, try not to quote it fifty times...

 

 

Pretty book for the grade. I'd love to own it, but am unfortunately, a bit shy on the $ department.

[comicwiz]

That's a well thought out response. And I actually agree with some of the tangential points.

 

Still keeping with the point that these are in fact still allegations, we are making some of these comments based on claims that there exists a stockpile of unused vintage parts that were used in recent years to put together MOC's in a manner appearing to be original factory sealed examples.

 

However what if we just compared the activity of assemblage on a per item basis?

 

Some are suggesting AFA reassign a qualified grade to those MOC's it has already graded, and which are suspected of being assembled using vintage parts and heat sealed with no intermediary adhesive. Moving forward, any submissions would receive a qualified grade as well.

 

Somehow, during CGC's evolution, dissassembly/reassembly of comics got the green light, and if we stick with the example of an Action 1 which spent nearly it's entire life acting as insulation, and not being intact throughout much of the time it spent dismembered behind drywall, should the act of reassembling the parts to produce the whole be treated any differently than AFA's need to treat suspect MOC's as qualified?

 

Apart from my own biases concerning the topics of dissassembly and staple replacement, it really does seem like a double-standard to be treating the actions of assemblage with one vintage item differently than another, when in both cases we wouldn't be having this discussion if the cardbacks were sold as proofs, and the Action 1 was sold for parts.

[wardevil0]

The same guy also pulled a Superman 4 out of the same house. It's in worse condition, maybe a 1.0-0.5. Even so, it's likely the best condition copy many of us would ever get to see.

 

The comics got into the wall because trash newsprint was commonly used as insulation in order to keep costs down, especially in the Midwest during and after the Dust Bowl. Farming profits were down, Owens-Corning Pink Fiberglass had not yet been invented... what's left to stuff in the walls? Old newspapers! Oh, and these silly funnybooks that will never be worth anything...

[originalisbest]

That's a well thought out response. And I actually agree with some of the tangential points.

 

Still keeping with the point that these are in fact still allegations, we are making some of these comments based on claims that there exists a stockpile of unused vintage parts that were used in recent years to put together MOC's in a manner appearing to be original factory sealed examples.

 

However what if we just compared the activity of assemblage on a one-off basis?

 

Some are suggesting AFA reassign a qualified grade to those MOC's suspected of being assembled using vintage parts and heat sealed with no intermediary adhesive.

 

Somehow, disassembly of comics got the green light with certification, and if we stick the example of an Action 1 which spent nearly it's entire life acting as insulation, and not being intact, should the act of reassembling the parts to produce the whole be considered differently than AFA's need to treat suspect samples as qualified.

 

Apart from my own biases of dissassembly and staple replacement, it really does seem like a double-standard to be treating the actions of assemblage with one vintage item differently than another, when in both cases we wouldn't be having this discussion if the cardbacks were sold as proofs, and the Action 1 was sold for parts.

 

And I have to say I agree with your point of view as well comicwiz -- apologies if misunderstood the nature of the Palitoys, I thought it was definitive that they were all-new assemblages of vintage parts, not just an allegation. I'll have to reread.

 

I do agree with you re: the Action #1, or any other extremely significantly reassembled book, that although it got a blue label here, being that the book was literally in pieces when found and had to have vintage staples (or were they the original ones?) inserted and bent by hand, I wouldn't find it odd to assign it a green label at all. I guess it's just a fine line to dance. Every collector has their own preferences, and I do always want my own books with paper indents that match the staple tines.

[wardevil0]

I think the key difference between the Star Wars figures in question and the Action #1 is the policies of AFA vs. CGC.

 

CGC has made it clear that they use the "Qualified" GLOD only when there is a book that would be relatively high-grade (9.4ish or better) that has one distinct flaw, such as an unverified autograph or insert removed. For lower-grade books, they just account for all the flaws. If the Action #1 example had been in pristine condition, except for the cover torn off, it may have rated a "Qualified" label. As it is, since it seems the cover was only folded around the comic and not actually reattached, that was counted as a flaw to bring a 2.0 or 2.5 book down to 1.5.

 

I am not fully versed in AFA's policies, but it seems like they give "Qualified" grades to items that are new but in opened boxes, which is approximately what I would consider these to be.

[originalisbest]

The same guy also pulled a Superman 4 out of the same house. It's in worse condition, maybe a 1.0-0.5. Even so, it's likely the best condition copy many of us would ever get to see.

 

The comics got into the wall because trash newsprint was commonly used as insulation in order to keep costs down, especially in the Midwest during and after the Dust Bowl. Farming profits were down, Owens-Corning Pink Fiberglass had not yet been invented... what's left to stuff in the walls? Old newspapers! Oh, and these silly funnybooks that will never be worth anything...

 

It's the funniest and coolest thing. Not at all germane to the thread, but I do recall a story being told of a Detective #27 (in good shape considering) being pulled from the stuffing of an old chair mattress that was being discarded.

 

Urban legend, or real? If real, wouldn't it be great to have a scan or record of the actual book? It always struck me as very odd, lotto-like odds that someone would think to rip apart an old cushion. But perhaps sensible, if the person was checking for money, put there by accident (loose change) or on purpose (stacks of bills safe from those old untrustworthy depression-era banks!)

[wardevil0]

CGC's definition of "Qualified:"

 

A Qualified label is used by CGC for certified books that have a significant defect that needs specific description, or to note an unauthenticated signature (one which was not witnessed by CGC). For example, it would be a disservice to the seller and buyer to call a VF/NM book with a 4-inch back cover tear a VG, so CGC will give this book a Qualified grade of "VF/NM 9.0, back cover 4-inch tear." Or, if the book is signed on the cover it may be noted as "Name Written on Cover."

 

CGC label descriptions

 

AFA's definition of "Qualified:"

QUALIFIED: Certain items which are graded under our qualified scale such as opened, but new vehicles and playsets, autographed items, rare items missing accessories, and certain hand-made prototypes and pre-production items will be encased with a blue grade label, rather than a red or green grade label. We will also designate a qualifier of Q or QUALIFIED on the grade label. (Example: Q-NM on a Classic label or QUALIFIED on a Clear View label)

 

AFA grading scales

[originalisbest]

I think the key difference between the Star Wars figures in question and the Action #1 is the policies of AFA vs. CGC.

 

CGC has made it clear that they use the "Qualified" GLOD only when there is a book that would be relatively high-grade (9.4ish or better) that has one distinct flaw, such as an unverified autograph or insert removed. For lower-grade books, they just account for all the flaws. If the Action #1 example had been in pristine condition, except for the cover torn off, it may have rated a "Qualified" label. As it is, since it seems the cover was only folded around the comic and not actually reattached, that was counted as a flaw to bring a 2.0 or 2.5 book down to 1.5.

 

I am not fully versed in AFA's policies, but it seems like they give "Qualified" grades to items that are new but in opened boxes, which is approximately what I would consider these to be.

 

Good summation and food for thought, Garlanda. Thanks.

[comicwiz]

That's a fair point. Still, I think the need to disclose the assemblage, whether high grade or not is a good policy for any company to observe. Especially since CCS performed the work, this is one example where it could/would have been possible for the reassembly et all work to have been noted even if CGC's policy excludes such examples from being eligible for a green label designation.

[Mike's Rack]

Another difference between the allegedly reassembled Action 1 and this situation that may hold some significance for the collector is the Action 1 parts were presumably all original to that unit whereas the TT repacks were never married by the factory. It may not matter to some but to others, the marriage ceremony is important. Sort of like being married in a formal ceremony versus being married by Elvis in a bingo hall. To some love is more important than a ceremony but to others the ceremony holds all the significance. In my experience, most collectors insist on the ceremony.

[wardevil0]

I've always been a promoter of the most information possible, especially in a case where the item in question has received national media attention. How much more interesting would it have been to denote "Minnesota Wall copy" on the label somewhere? Especially given the possibility that this book would be bought by an investor who knows or cares little about its provenance. A detailed chronology of its life since re-discovery would set it apart from others and maybe make it more desireable than an unidentified copy.

 

The tiny "cover detached" note just does not do it justice, in my opinion.

[originalisbest]

I've always been a promoter of the most information possible, especially in a case where the item in question has received national media attention. How much more interesting would it have been to denote "Minnesota Wall copy" on the label somewhere? Especially given the possibility that this book would be bought by an investor who knows or cares little about its provenance. A detailed chronology of its life since re-discovery would set it apart from others and maybe make it more desireable than an unidentified copy.

 

The tiny "cover detached" note just does not do it justice, in my opinion.

 

I would agree with this too. If/when it is owned by a well-heeled investor who might also enjoy the local color story aspect of this particular copy, that bit of information will be lost. It may not mean much to anyone in the future, but I always get a kick out of the fact that an early Jughead I own (bought from Ernie Gerber a few years before he died) is the copy he photographed for his Gerber guides -- identifiable by an unobtrusive dust shadow in the cover corner.

[comicwiz]

I've always been a promoter of the most information possible, especially in a case where the item in question has received national media attention. How much more interesting would it have been to denote "Minnesota Wall copy" on the label somewhere? Especially given the possibility that this book would be bought by an investor who knows or cares little about its provenance. A detailed chronology of its life since re-discovery would set it apart from others and maybe make it more desireable than an unidentified copy.

 

The tiny "cover detached" note just does not do it justice, in my opinion.

 

I agree

[wardevil0]

I've always been a promoter of the most information possible, especially in a case where the item in question has received national media attention. How much more interesting would it have been to denote "Minnesota Wall copy" on the label somewhere? Especially given the possibility that this book would be bought by an investor who knows or cares little about its provenance. A detailed chronology of its life since re-discovery would set it apart from others and maybe make it more desireable than an unidentified copy.

 

The tiny "cover detached" note just does not do it justice, in my opinion.

 

I would agree with this too. If/when it is owned by a well-heeled investor who might also enjoy the local color story aspect of this particular copy, that bit of information will be lost. It may not mean much to anyone in the future, but I always get a kick out of the fact that an early Jughead I own (bought from Ernie Gerber a few years before he died) is the copy he photographed for his Gerber guides -- identifiable by an unobtrusive dust shadow in the cover corner.

 

Nice! The Jughead by which other Jugheads are judged. It's cool in my book. (thumbs u

[originalisbest]

I've always been a promoter of the most information possible, especially in a case where the item in question has received national media attention. How much more interesting would it have been to denote "Minnesota Wall copy" on the label somewhere? Especially given the possibility that this book would be bought by an investor who knows or cares little about its provenance. A detailed chronology of its life since re-discovery would set it apart from others and maybe make it more desireable than an unidentified copy.

 

The tiny "cover detached" note just does not do it justice, in my opinion.

 

I would agree with this too. If/when it is owned by a well-heeled investor who might also enjoy the local color story aspect of this particular copy, that bit of information will be lost. It may not mean much to anyone in the future, but I always get a kick out of the fact that an early Jughead I own (bought from Ernie Gerber a few years before he died) is the copy he photographed for his Gerber guides -- identifiable by an unobtrusive dust shadow in the cover corner.

 

Nice! The Jughead by which other Jugheads are judged. It's cool in my book. (thumbs u

 

Thanks! The Jughead in question is issue #9. A fun cover and really in nice shape overall.

[comicwiz]

Just an FYI that an update was made to a thread I started last week, and was moved to the Water Cooler.

 

Just wanted to make anyone from this community interested in this development, and those who responded in this thread aware of AFA's response to the requests, which have now officially been heard and met.

[comicwiz]

A UK based collector has received some help from a BBC program called "Fakers" to get the word out on the Toy Toni scandal. Here is the segment which originally aired a few days ago:

 

Tonigate Fake Britain

 

2014-12-11-Tonigate Fake Britiain

[budsbundy]

A UK based collector has received some help from a BBC program called "Fakers" to get the word out on the Toy Toni scandal. Here is the segment which originally aired a few days ago:

 

Tonigate Fake Britain

 

2014-12-11-Tonigate Fake Britiain

That was a great vid

 

I'm surprised there's not more counterfeiting going on with comics.

When I came back to collecting after 30 years away, that was one of the things I was concerned about at first, would there be a bunch of fakes floating around, but it looks like except for a few isolated incidents, there is not a bunch of comic counterfeiting going on.

[Buzzetta]

I recently picked up two AFA graded SW figures increasing my collection to a grand total of 'four' and thanks to the collected information in this thread, I knew what to avoid. (As of now I am avoiding Palitoy and General Mills SW figures all together actually)

 

One of the things I noticed was that some sellers actually doubt the authenticity of what they have in hand and discounted it as such and / or put disclaimers in their listings.

 

Either way...

 

Thanks for the info as I plan on eventually picking up a few more down the road.