Can anyone please explain why this is not ...

[Tony S]

There’s no hard and fast rule about signature location. Signing on the bottom of the splash was common, but when Stan signed my ASM #8 in ’78, he signed the cover, and dated it too IIRC. I didn't consider it ruined then and still don't.

 

I wasn't suggesting it ruined the comic, I was suggesting that everyone I knew at that time considered writing on the cover (even a signature) as sacrilege. Sounds like that wasn't the case globally.

 

Don't know where Dr. Carl is from, but in the 70's and 80's around this area signing on the cover was considered a sin. That doesn't mean it wasn't done, but it was certainly met with odd stares at best and outright criticism at worst.

[Dr Carl]

There’s no hard and fast rule about signature location. Signing on the bottom of the splash was common, but when Stan signed my ASM #8 in ’78, he signed the cover, and dated it too IIRC. I didn't consider it ruined then and still don't.

 

I wasn't suggesting it ruined the comic, I was suggesting that everyone I knew at that time considered writing on the cover (even a signature) as sacrilege. Sounds like that wasn't the case globally.

 

Don't know where Dr. Carl is from, but in the 70's and 80's around this area signing on the cover was considered a sin. That doesn't mean it wasn't done, but it was certainly met with odd stares at best and outright criticism at worst.

 

You got the wrong guy - where I was from it was sinful and sacrilegious!

[kav]

There’s no hard and fast rule about signature location. Signing on the bottom of the splash was common, but when Stan signed my ASM #8 in ’78, he signed the cover, and dated it too IIRC. I didn't consider it ruined then and still don't.

 

I wasn't suggesting it ruined the comic, I was suggesting that everyone I knew at that time considered writing on the cover (even a signature) as sacrilege. Sounds like that wasn't the case globally.

 

Don't know where Dr. Carl is from, but in the 70's and 80's around this area signing on the cover was considered a sin. That doesn't mean it wasn't done, but it was certainly met with odd stares at best and outright criticism at worst.

 

You got the wrong guy - where I was from it was sinful and sacrilegious!

To me it's still utterly horrific....

[Tony S]

There’s no hard and fast rule about signature location. Signing on the bottom of the splash was common, but when Stan signed my ASM #8 in ’78, he signed the cover, and dated it too IIRC. I didn't consider it ruined then and still don't.

 

I wasn't suggesting it ruined the comic, I was suggesting that everyone I knew at that time considered writing on the cover (even a signature) as sacrilege. Sounds like that wasn't the case globally.

 

Don't know where Dr. Carl is from, but in the 70's and 80's around this area signing on the cover was considered a sin. That doesn't mean it wasn't done, but it was certainly met with odd stares at best and outright criticism at worst.

 

You got the wrong guy - where I was from it was sinful and sacrilegious!

To me it's still utterly horrific....

 

I don't mean to take pokes at what anyone else collects, but if asked I have to admit a dislike for signatures on the front cover. I'm just old - and old school.

 

At least around here, I can remember when the attitudes started to change. It was when Valiant was red-hot. Some sports card dealers started entering the hobby and they were accustomed to signed cards being sought after. So you'd go to shows in this area and you'd see these "new" comic book dealers with books signed on the cover. They were the ones that sort of broke the ice.

[kav]

There’s no hard and fast rule about signature location. Signing on the bottom of the splash was common, but when Stan signed my ASM #8 in ’78, he signed the cover, and dated it too IIRC. I didn't consider it ruined then and still don't.

 

I wasn't suggesting it ruined the comic, I was suggesting that everyone I knew at that time considered writing on the cover (even a signature) as sacrilege. Sounds like that wasn't the case globally.

 

Don't know where Dr. Carl is from, but in the 70's and 80's around this area signing on the cover was considered a sin. That doesn't mean it wasn't done, but it was certainly met with odd stares at best and outright criticism at worst.

 

You got the wrong guy - where I was from it was sinful and sacrilegious!

To me it's still utterly horrific....

 

I don't mean to take pokes at what anyone else collects, but if asked I have to admit a dislike for signatures on the front cover. I'm just old - and old school.

 

At least around here, I can remember when the attitudes started to change. It was when Valiant was red-hot. Some sports card dealers started entering the hobby and they were accustomed to signed cards being sought after. So you'd go to shows in this area and you'd see these "new" comic book dealers with books signed on the cover. They were the ones that sort of broke the ice.

Thanks a lot guys.

[Meeklo]

I'm curious as to this one…

 

I got this:

 

 

 

And then I see this on ebay:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/X-Men-1-CGC-1-0-Signature-Series-Signed-Stan-Lee-1st-X-men-Iceman-Beast-/321336265625?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item4ad1224b99

 

My .5 is in much better condition then this 1.0…so why is mine a .5? Granted, I got about a third of the back cover missing and a bit o' tape but does that automatically make it a .5?

[BlowUpTheMoon]

…so why is mine a .5? Granted, I got about a third of the back cover missing and a bit o' tape but does that automatically make it a .5?

 

You answered your own question.

[Meeklo]

…so why is mine a .5? Granted, I got about a third of the back cover missing and a bit o' tape but does that automatically make it a .5?

 

You answered your own question.

 

That's what I was afraid of. If it wasn't for that missing piece of back cover, the grade would be much higher…and I probably would not be the current owner since I probably couldn't afford it.

[Conan_Aficionado]

I'm curious as to this one…

 

I got this:

 

 

 

And then I see this on ebay:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/X-Men-1-CGC-1-0-Signature-Series-Signed-Stan-Lee-1st-X-men-Iceman-Beast-/321336265625?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item4ad1224b99

 

My .5 is in much better condition then this 1.0…so why is mine a .5? Granted, I got about a third of the back cover missing and a bit o' tape but does that automatically make it a .5?

 

everyone knows that a stan lee sig bumps the grade up by one.

[Meeklo]

I think there should be different qualifications as well. I'd have a hard time calling it a .5 if the entire cover is there (except for that tiny piece in the upper right corner). No one sits and stares at a back cover unless it's a wrap around cover. So if it is just for some ad…who cares if it is missing? Granted, I understand it still takes away from the value overall, but I would be less willing to buy a .5 were the back cover is intact but there is a third of the front cover missing.

 

I believe this is my foot in the door to start up grading. I'll save for a couple of months and sell this off to put myself into a nice 1.5 to 2.0.

[techtre2003]

…so why is mine a .5? Granted, I got about a third of the back cover missing and a bit o' tape but does that automatically make it a .5?

 

You answered your own question.

 

That's what I was afraid of. If it wasn't for that missing piece of back cover, the grade would be much higher…and I probably would not be the current owner since I probably couldn't afford it.

 

I would take your book over the other one any time. I think you got lucky yours was only graded a .5!

You made an awesome buy in my opinion!!! (thumbs u

[Meeklo]

Thanks…I feel no buyers remorse at all…

 

Some co-worker looked at it and said "…yeah but it's a .5"

 

Then I gently reminded him that he works at Best Buy and he cannot afford to be picky either.

[shadroch]

I'm curious as to this one…

 

I got this:

 

 

 

And then I see this on ebay:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/X-Men-1-CGC-1-0-Signature-Series-Signed-Stan-Lee-1st-X-men-Iceman-Beast-/321336265625?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item4ad1224b99

 

My .5 is in much better condition then this 1.0…so why is mine a .5? Granted, I got about a third of the back cover missing and a bit o' tape but does that automatically make it a .5?

 

I'd liberate that book, throw away the slab and never look back.

[techtre2003]

Thanks…I feel no buyers remorse at all…

 

Some co-worker looked at it and said "…yeah but it's a .5"

 

Then I gently reminded him that he works at Best Buy and he cannot afford to be picky either.

 

Haters gonna hate right?

I agree with Shadroch, I'd crack that puppy open and stick it in a mylar. I know you mentioned upgrading to a 1.5 or 2 but if I had that book I'd just keep it and put that money toward another key instead.

[rjpb]

I'm curious as to this one…

 

I got this:

 

 

 

And then I see this on ebay:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/X-Men-1-CGC-1-0-Signature-Series-Signed-Stan-Lee-1st-X-men-Iceman-Beast-/321336265625?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item4ad1224b99

 

My .5 is in much better condition then this 1.0…so why is mine a .5? Granted, I got about a third of the back cover missing and a bit o' tape but does that automatically make it a .5?

 

Assuming for a moment that the 1.0 wasn't signed, I imagine most collectors would prefer your copy. It's my conviction that in the sub-2.0 grades it's far less about what CGC or any one else feels the actual grade, but what the problems are, and how the individual collector feels about them. You could have a book missing the back cover, but with good eye appeal on the front and above average paper quality get a .5, while a "complete" copy that looks like it was used as a doormat gets a 1.5, and it wouldn't be shocking to see the .5 sell for more.

[shadroch]

I'd find a low grade book and cut the missing cover parts off it That's a pretty common back cover.. Lets face it. There is nothing you can do to lower the grade.

[slym2none]

I think there should be different qualifications as well. I'd have a hard time calling it a .5 if the entire cover is there (except for that tiny piece in the upper right corner). No one sits and stares at a back cover unless it's a wrap around cover. So if it is just for some ad…who cares if it is missing? Granted, I understand it still takes away from the value overall, but I would be less willing to buy a .5 were the back cover is intact but there is a third of the front cover missing.

 

I believe this is my foot in the door to start up grading. I'll save for a couple of months and sell this off to put myself into a nice 1.5 to 2.0.

 

Just apply to Vault Grading company.

 

 

 

-slym