THE AMAZING FANTASY #15 CLUB 39 39

[SC22]

1 hour ago, lou_fine said:

So, is everybody really saying that chewed up AF 15 is a superior copy to this lower graded copy of AF 15:

http://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?referral=EAlist&id=700363&title=AMAZINGFANTASY

I don't see any difference at all between mouse chew and this so-called Marvel chipping, yet it seems that CGC downgrades severely for the former and ignores the latter, when they both produce the same visual eye penetrating defects on a book. 

What an absolute joke and travesty this is in terms of being a "properly graded" book.   

To much focus on the front cover no one knows what was wrong with the CGC 5.0 on the inside maybe this book has a rougher front cover but the inside is much nicer. The back on the 5.0 was not very nice it had stains and one could just image how bad the inside could be. Anyone who buys a AF15 without the grader's notes is taking a big risk same goes for any expensive book.

There is most likely a very good chance that the 5.0 will NOT grade higher (I can't believe the seller would have let it go at a 5.0 if he had any indication it would grade higher....why loss at that extra money just does not make sens....possible yes....likely no).....there has to be something we are not seen.

In the end CGC does not grade a full book just based on the front page everything else comes into account for the final overall grade.

Edited March 27, 2017 by SupergirlDC19591

[lou_fine]

23 minutes ago, SupergirlDC19591 said:

In the end CGC does not grade a full book just based on the front page everything else comes into account for the final overall grade.

+1

In total agreement with you here. 

But then CGC should not grade a book by either ignoring or mind filling in the chipping on the cover, as the defects on the spine is probably enough to being that book down to 6.0 grade all on its own.  The chips should bring it down below a 6.0 grade, unless you are assuming they do not exist. 

[showcase22gr1959]

AF15's in 6.0+ are so scarce now in the market place, even this copy with MC will have fierce competition to own it. I guess the 6.0 is the new high grade arena for this book due to the gap up prices we have seen recently.

[Jordysnordy]

6 hours ago, lou_fine said:

So, is everybody really saying that chewed up AF 15 is a superior copy to this lower graded copy of AF 15:

http://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?referral=EAlist&id=700363&title=AMAZINGFANTASY

I don't see any difference at all between mouse chew and this so-called Marvel chipping, yet it seems that CGC downgrades severely for the former and ignores the latter, when they both produce the same visual eye penetrating defects on a book. 

What an absolute joke and travesty this is in terms of being a "properly graded" book.   

I haven't read one comment that says the 6.0 is superior to the 5.0 - people are just saying that it will bring a very strong price in this market. I'm pretty sure there are collectors/investors who buy the grade and not the book and they won't know/care about subtle things that affect grades either upwards or downwards - they just want a particular grade and are willing to overlook things.

[G.A.tor]

For years and years and years and years I've preached from the mountain top about marvel chipping etc. 

much of the market always agreed but so many folks touted "gpa" that it used to be a little tougher to explain why my non mc copies were priced at a premium to the gpa/average copy

the price spreads weren't as prevalent then, so it wasn't as noticeable . But now that the market has started to incorporate that into realized prices , I'm glad to see it 

[entalmighty1]

26 minutes ago, G.A.tor said:

For years and years and years and years I've preached from the mountain top about marvel chipping etc. 

much of the market always agreed but so many folks touted "gpa" that it used to be a little tougher to explain why my non mc copies were priced at a premium to the gpa/average copy

the price spreads weren't as prevalent then, so it wasn't as noticeable . But now that the market has started to incorporate that into realized prices , I'm glad to see it 

I guess I can understand why CGC doesn't take "eye appeal" into their grading, but I can't imagine a buyer not using that as a factor.  I know for some, the only thing that matters is the little number in the top left, but I'm not one of those people.  I think you're absolutely right in putting a premium on copies that "look" better.

[G.A.tor]

34 minutes ago, entalmighty1 said:

I guess I can understand why CGC doesn't take "eye appeal" into their grading, but I can't imagine a buyer not using that as a factor.  I know for some, the only thing that matters is the little number in the top left, but I'm not one of those people.  I think you're absolutely right in putting a premium on copies that "look" better.

I certainly believe most all care about eye appeal ...what I ran/run into is buyers want to pay "average" prices (those data that incorporate inferior looking copies ) for "premium" copies. 

Ive always differentiated , and hope that folks will start to also

[Magneto]

49 minutes ago, G.A.tor said:

I certainly believe most all care about eye appeal ...what I ran/run into is buyers want to pay "average" prices (those data that incorporate inferior looking copies ) for "premium" copies. 

Ive always differentiated , and hope that folks will start to also

Completely agree! With my money, I know I would spend money on a lower copy without chipping,

[tv horror]

Thank you very much for the reply, yes I have this book what I was looking for was a reprint of AF15 itself not unlike the Marvel tales copy. As I live in N.Ireland comics are few and far between here so the hunt continues, thanks again.

Maurice

[zhamlau]

The issue is one of remediation. So many copies with MC were given the pass over the last 10+ years that it would be difficult to start lower grading them now. Its like "so your saying older grading is inferior?" and that cant happen. SO the options for them (I assume) are limited.

1. Leave it as is and let the more engaged collectors figure out the grade is not the final say that chipping/eye appeal matter as much and on some level more (for some books).

2. (my favorite option) start treating Marvel Chipping as a comment/qualifier defect they list on the label the same way they do "tape on cover" or "Spot of glue" just have "Production Chipping" as new term to put on. Going forward all books will have that, and any reholders the book will have it put on label.

3. Use the "star" system they have a copyright on. Put a star on all copies with exceptional eye appeal (aka no chips). People will put two-two together and realize all "exceptional eye appeal" copies will also MAGICALLY also be books without MC.

[entalmighty1]

5 minutes ago, zhamlau said:

3. Use the "star" system they have a copyright on. Put a star on all copies with exceptional eye appeal (aka no chips). People will put two-two together and realize all "exceptional eye appeal" copies will also MAGICALLY also be books without MC.

I can see the ebay listing abuse already!  

CGC NOT CBCS NOT PGX NOT STAR COPY NOT CVA NOT 9.8

[Spyderfan]

5 minutes ago, entalmighty1 said:

I can see the ebay listing abuse already!  

CGC NOT CBCS NOT PGX NOT STAR COPY NOT CVA NOT 9.8

[Foley]

1 hour ago, tv horror said:

Thank you very much for the reply, yes I have this book what I was looking for was a reprint of AF15 itself not unlike the Marvel tales copy. As I live in N.Ireland comics are few and far between here so the hunt continues, thanks again.

Maurice

Hey Maurice,

Here's a post made by @Artboy99 in a thread called "What's the best reprint or version of Amazing Fantasy 15 to own besides the orig"

You can find the whole thread here, which also has a lot of other good info: 

 

On 7/27/2015 at 2:17 PM, Artboy99 said:

Good choices for AF 15 reprint:

 

The Milestone Edition:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Marvel-Milestone-Edition-Amazing-Fantasy-15-reprint-1st-Spider-man-FN-1992-/261976209700?hash=item3cfeffb924

 

The Newspaper reprint:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1962-AMAZING-FANTASY-15-NM-Spider-Man-2006-Collectible-Series-Vol-1-REPRINT-/111727006655?hash=item1a0372d3bf

 

Marvel Tales 137:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Marvel-Tales-137-REPRINTS-AMAZING-FANTASY-15-1ST-APP-OF-SPIDER-MAN-DR-STRANGE-/291503072902?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43deefe686

 

Toybiz Reprint:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Amazing-Fantasy-15-1962-2001-Reprint-Toy-Biz-/171840334215?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item28027b6987

 

Spiderman Classics:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Spider-Man-Classics-1-reprints-Amazing-Fantasy-15-Strange-Tales-115-NM-9-2-/261866186940?hash=item3cf870e8bc

 

Amazing Fantasy 15 2012 version: ( can be found cheaper than this listing )

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/AMAZING-FANTASY-15-SPIDER-MAN-CGC-SS-9-8-MARVEL-SIGNED-BY-STAN-LEE-2012-REPRINT-/271940966874?hash=item3f50f1d9da

 

Take your pick

 

Edited March 27, 2017 by Foley

[paul747]

On 3/24/2017 at 8:58 PM, VintageComics said:

Now you're throwing all sorts of qualifiers into the discussion. 

Hulk #1 is picking up steam again. I have no idea what fraud you're talking about. The book legitimately jumped across the board, stabilized (and pulled back a bit in lower grades) and now is climbing again.

Anyhow, back to the discussion, this is what was said:

Sure enough, over the past 6 months you could have bought an AF #15, paid it off for 6 months and then resold it for a profit. 

You can add pre Robin Batman, Detective #38, Batman #1, Action #1, Detective #27, possibly TOS #39 and X-men #1 and Showcase #4 to that list. There are probably other books too but you get my point.

Does that mean you can do it every time? No, but certainly over the past year this seems to have been the case.

 

Is this kinda thought process and behavior part of what is propping up these prices? Sure ill pay an extra 5 grand over what i would have paid cause its on credit?(zero interest credit) This creates a price vacuum. The more one guy sold a book for, the more the next guy asks (and..up and up we go!).  It is pretty clear that a lot more than comic collectors are playing with the AF #15.  This book by the day gets more and more out of wack with the guide.

[drbanner]

2 hours ago, zhamlau said:

The issue is one of remediation. So many copies with MC were given the pass over the last 10+ years that it would be difficult to start lower grading them now. Its like "so your saying older grading is inferior?" and that cant happen.

CGC has changed their stance on defects like this before (tape used to "reattach" covers) so they certainly could start downgrading for MC, but probably won't. Not downgrading for Marvel chipping was one of, it not the, worst grading decisions CGC ever made.

[lou_fine]

2 hours ago, zhamlau said:

The issue is one of remediation. So many copies with MC were given the pass over the last 10+ years that it would be difficult to start lower grading them now. Its like "so your saying older grading is inferior?" and that cant happen. SO the options for them (I assume) are limited.

I don't believe their options are limited, as they have made changes to their unpublished grading standards before.  The perfect example would be how they handle the issue of tape on a book, as this is now consider to be a defect, whereas before not necessarily so much.

There is no point to keep continuing to make a mistake just for the simple fact that past practice should prevail and they should continue making the mistake going forward.     This makes absolutely no sense at all as the marketplace has clearly spoken out on this particular issue. 

2 hours ago, zhamlau said:

2. (my favorite option) start treating Marvel Chipping as a comment/qualifier defect they list on the label the same way they do "tape on cover" or "Spot of glue" just have "Production Chipping" as new term to put on. Going forward all books will have that, and any reholders the book will have it put on label.

+1

Excellent idea and a good strategy to address this particular issue here going forward, as opposed to keeping the current incorrect grading policy in place. 

[lou_fine]

1 minute ago, drbanner said:

2 hours ago, zhamlau said:

The issue is one of remediation. So many copies with MC were given the pass over the last 10+ years that it would be difficult to start lower grading them now. Its like "so your saying older grading is inferior?" and that cant happen.

CGC has changed their stance on defects like this before (tape used to "reattach" covers) so they certainly could start downgrading for MC, but probably won't. Not downgrading for Marvel chipping was one of, it not the, worst grading decisions CGC ever made.

+1

You are just so correct in your statement here. 

Especially since it really puts into the question the relevancy of the CGC label grade for any early Marvel book that exhibits any type of chipping at all and it also puts into question the usefulness of GPA data for any early Marvel book. 

[gadzukes]

I'm sure this has been asked & answered before but I think it's worth bringing up again...

What approximate percentage of Af15s have some degree of MC?  I know some of you dealers that have sold quite a few copies might have a good idea.

[namisgr]

12 hours ago, lou_fine said:

So, is everybody really saying that chewed up AF 15 is a superior copy to this lower graded copy of AF 15:

http://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?referral=EAlist&id=700363&title=AMAZINGFANTASY

I don't see any difference at all between mouse chew and this so-called Marvel chipping, yet it seems that CGC downgrades severely for the former and ignores the latter, when they both produce the same visual eye penetrating defects on a book. 

What an absolute joke and travesty this is in terms of being a "properly graded" book.   

Two things in reaction to your post.  First, a rat chew will destroy a part of the entire book, and not just remove small parts of the front or back cover.  Second, it has been my experience that CGC severely downgrades otherwise high grade comics for Marvel chipping.  The magnitude of the downgrade depends on the degree of chipping (pre-chips, or chips gone, just one edge or multiple edges, just a single chip, a couple, or many), and the grade of the comic had there otherwise been no chipping.  The lower the grade, the less impactful any chipping, especially so for minor instances.

 

I used to own the Pacific Coast copy of JIM #90.  It was an otherwise near mint comic (I owned the comic before it was ever slabbed, and so know its quality) with severe pre-chipping along the right edge of the front cover, and including a bit of prechipping along the top edge as well.  No chips were missing.  It was graded a 7.0, proving that CGC does indeed downgrade substantially for Marvel chipping under certain circumstances.  At one time I owned several other high grade early SA Marvels whose numerical grades were influenced by various degrees of chipping/prechipping.

Edited March 27, 2017 by namisgr

[entalmighty1]

21 minutes ago, namisgr said:

Two things in reaction to your post.  First, a rat chew will destroy a part of the entire book, and not just remove small parts of the front or back cover.  Second, it has been my experience that CGC severely downgrades otherwise high grade comics for Marvel chipping.  The magnitude of the downgrade depends on the degree of chipping (pre-chips, or chips gone, just one edge or multiple edges, just a single chip, a couple, or many), and the grade of the comic had there otherwise been no chipping.  The lower the grade, the less impactful any chipping, especially so for minor instances.

 

I used to own the Pacific Coast copy of JIM #90.  It was an otherwise near mint comic (I owned the comic before it was ever slabbed, and so know its quality) with severe pre-chipping along the right edge of the front cover, and including a bit of prechipping along the top edge as well.  No chips were missing.  It was graded a 7.0, proving that CGC does indeed downgrade substantially for Marvel chipping under certain circumstances.  At one time I owned several other high grade early SA Marvels whose numerical grades were influenced by various degrees of chipping/prechipping.

So it could be that they do downgrade for chipping, but specific blue chip books get a pass.  That's an even more disturbing business decision than ignoring it completely.  I've got a copy of ToS 52 that has several chips missing that got a 6.5, otherwise looks 7.5-8.0 to me.