Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[Straw-Man]

dd 7 is such a great book [is it ok to make a qualitative post about a funny-book here, between the consipiracy/conflict/con-men posts?].

[Silver Surfer]

You can find info on a DD7 I believe a Pacific Coast that was pressed from 8.5 to 9.6 after 4-5 tries.

 

As a fan of Pedigrees, to me this is disgusting. First off, no one can convince me this is the same legacy book that was in the Original collection. In this case, the Pedigree status is meaningless.

Also, if you ever ever owned books from certain pedigrees that have outstanding color you can see a deterioration in the color after a pressing.

It's a subtle thing, only noticeable in hand, but that sharp brightness, fresh off the stand look is diminished. I can only imagine that multiple pressings will completely destroy the freshness factor.

 

Anyone have scans of the DD in question? I would imagine it wouldn't be tough to track down PC scans of a key.

 

It's a beautiful book - looks every bit a 9.6:

 

 

I just wish I was able to buy it when it was an 8.5. What a gorgeous book and cover.

[mschmidt]

You can find info on a DD7 I believe a Pacific Coast that was pressed from 8.5 to 9.6 after 4-5 tries.

 

As a fan of Pedigrees, to me this is disgusting. First off, no one can convince me this is the same legacy book that was in the Original collection. In this case, the Pedigree status is meaningless.

Also, if you ever ever owned books from certain pedigrees that have outstanding color you can see a deterioration in the color after a pressing.

It's a subtle thing, only noticeable in hand, but that sharp brightness, fresh off the stand look is diminished. I can only imagine that multiple pressings will completely destroy the freshness factor.

 

Anyone have scans of the DD in question? I would imagine it wouldn't be tough to track down PC scans of a key.

 

It's a beautiful book - looks every bit a 9.6:

 

 

Agreed, here it is a little larger. Does anyone have the "before" scans of the 8.5? The tiny chips on the right side and the slight miswrap should be identifiable if someone thinks something funny happened with this book.

 

 

I'm not finding anything that suggests it was a 8.5 - I see it listed as a 9.2 copy in the auction results from Pedigree Comics' 2006 auction:

http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/Home/4/1/73/1012?articleID=51835

[mschmidt]

Courtesy of NOD ...

 

Graded on 04/06/2005

 

Label doesn't exist in the CGC database anymore

 

The 9.6 was graded on 08/27/2008.

[lizards2]

looks like multiple different copies.

[pickycollector]

Look, CGC will NEVER include notes about their in house pressing, etc. Since it would only apply to "their own" books, it isn't going to happen. It puts "their" books at a marketing disadvantage.

 

This part of the argument is THAT simple. It won't happen.

 

Nobody cares about pressing. Why would putting it on the label create a disadvantage?

We all know the answer, don't we ?

[mschmidt]

looks like multiple different copies.

 

On closer inspection, I think you're right - the 9.4 and 9.6 copies are the same book, but the 9.2 has a completely different wrap (look at the "Marvel Comics Group" inside the price box and where the newspaper hits the edge on the right-hand side) and the color bleed below DD above the price is also more pronounced.

 

I know that there were dupes of some books in the Pacific Coast collection, so perhaps that's just what this is.

 

It would also explain why the CGC cert number for the 9.2 copy comes up valid in the CGC database and the cert number for the 9.4 does not - in order to retain the pedigree designation, you would have had to include the label with the book when it was resubmitted which would trigger a removal of the old serial from the database.

[mysterio]

looks like multiple different copies.

 

On closer inspection, I think you're right - the 9.4 and 9.6 copies are the same book, but the 9.2 has a completely different wrap (look at the "Marvel Comics Group" inside the price box and where the newspaper hits the edge on the right-hand side) and the color bleed below DD above the price is also more pronounced.

 

I know that there were dupes of some books in the Pacific Coast collection, so perhaps that's just what this is.

 

It would also explain why the CGC cert number for the 9.2 copy comes up valid in the CGC database and the cert number for the 9.4 does not - in order to retain the pedigree designation, you would have had to include the label with the book when it was resubmitted which would trigger a removal of the old serial from the database.

 

That all makes sense. If one of them was previously an 8.5 that could have been the one upgraded to a 9.2, but that is pure speculation on my part. 8.5 to 9.6 seems a very unlikely jump to me.

[Ghost Town]

There were 2 different Pacific Coast DD #7s. I bought one of them raw from Robert Roter. I subbed it myself and it came back a 9.2. The other copy also initially was a 9.2 and I believe that's the book that is now a 9.6.

[mschmidt]

There were 2 different Pacific Coast DD #7s. I bought one of them raw from Robert Roter. I subbed it myself and it came back a 9.2. The other copy also initially was a 9.2 and I believe that's the book that is now a 9.6.

 

Thanks for the clarification, Barton :thumbsup:

[miraclemet]

Is the current DD7 PC 9.6 the same one that was sold a few times back in 2006 when it was a 9.2 or is that a different copy (were/are there two PacCoast DD7s?)

[mschmidt]

The one that sold a couple of times in 2006 is the 0708569003 copy - which is the one that Barton subbed (and not the one that's a 9.6 now).

[ttfitz]

I've stayed out of this because (1) I'm new here, (b) I don't collect slabbed comics, (3) I'm not interested in pressing my books, (d) I collect lower grades so I would trade most of my books for one of these "fugly" books in an instant, (5) there is no 5, and (6) an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

 

But for some reason, I just can't stop myself from reading along in this massive thread. Being a largely disinterested party, I can see that both (all three/four/five? I lose track) sides in this have their points.

 

But I just had to say that THIS:

 

... However, on the other hand, if there is nothing wrong with pressing, or dry cleaning, what is the big deal ABOUT putting it on the label?

 

... Why would those that hide what they do they "benefit"so much if just a "few" people care?

 

... That way people can make an informed choice of what books they want to buy.

 

 

...makes the most sense of all to me. Particularly if it is true that multiple pressings can cause defects, it would be good to know, so you don't inadvertently make things worse instead of better.

 

As NBC says, the more you know...

 

[drbanner]

... However, on the other hand, if there is nothing wrong with pressing, or dry cleaning, what is the big deal ABOUT putting it on the label?

 

... Why would those that hide what they do they "benefit"so much if just a "few" people care?

 

... That way people can make an informed choice of what books they want to buy.

 

...makes the most sense of all to me. Particularly if it is true that multiple pressings can cause defects, it would be good to know, so you don't inadvertently make things worse instead of better.

 

As NBC says, the more you know...

I know, it seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it? Especially since Matt has raised the issue that books should not be pressed more than once. (thumbs u

[linmoth]

Barton is correct. The other PC DD7 was submitted originally and graded 9.2 never was an 8.5. The book was dripping in cover gloss and besides the chips along the right side of the book it was very nice.

 

The reason why it did not grade higher on the original submission was the, what I call roller creases when the book came off the assembly line, they were very obvious when viewing the book at a horizontal position.

 

I assume Doug pressed it to obtain the 9.4 and then again to achieve the 9.6.

 

Tom

 

 

[Ghost Town]

The one that sold a couple of times in 2006 is the 0708569003 copy - which is the one that Barton subbed (and not the one that's a 9.6 now).

This is the book I bought raw way back in the day. I believe it's the top right corner that keeps it from a higher grade. It came back a 9.2 when I originally sent it to CGC. I sent it in again and it stayed a 9.2. I'm guessing it's still a 9.2, but you never know. In any event, it's a very nice book.

 

[mschmidt]

I've stayed out of this because (1) I'm new here, (b) I don't collect slabbed comics, (3) I'm not interested in pressing my books, (d) I collect lower grades so I would trade most of my books for one of these "fugly" books in an instant, (5) there is no 5, and (6) an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

 

But for some reason, I just can't stop myself from reading along in this massive thread. Being a largely disinterested party, I can see that both (all three/four/five? I lose track) sides in this have their points.

 

But I just had to say that THIS:

 

... However, on the other hand, if there is nothing wrong with pressing, or dry cleaning, what is the big deal ABOUT putting it on the label?

 

... Why would those that hide what they do they "benefit"so much if just a "few" people care?

 

... That way people can make an informed choice of what books they want to buy.

 

 

...makes the most sense of all to me. Particularly if it is true that multiple pressings can cause defects, it would be good to know, so you don't inadvertently make things worse instead of better.

 

As NBC says, the more you know...

 

It's a fallacious argument, though, because you're dealing with techniques that if done properly can't be detected with anywhere near 100% accuracy. Which means that CGC would either have to guess or would be at the mercy of the submitter actually putting the X in the little "has this book been pressed?" checkbox on the submission form.

 

Do you honestly think that the people who squeeze books 5 times in order to get that extra 0.2 grade bump would have any qualms about not being truthful on their submission form? No, they'd sit back and reap the rewards from selling pressed books that people think are unpressed due to a lack of a CGC notation.

[MCMiles]

The one that sold a couple of times in 2006 is the 0708569003 copy - which is the one that Barton subbed (and not the one that's a 9.6 now).

This is the book I bought raw way back in the day. I believe it's the top right corner that keeps it from a higher grade. It came back a 9.2 when I originally sent it to CGC. I sent it in again and it stayed a 9.2. I'm guessing it's still a 9.2, but you never know. In any event, it's a very nice book.

 

 

It's a fantastic book, Barton.

[mschmidt]

The one that sold a couple of times in 2006 is the 0708569003 copy - which is the one that Barton subbed (and not the one that's a 9.6 now).

This is the book I bought raw way back in the day. I believe it's the top right corner that keeps it from a higher grade. It came back a 9.2 when I originally sent it to CGC. I sent it in again and it stayed a 9.2. I'm guessing it's still a 9.2, but you never know. In any event, it's a very nice book.

 

 

It's a fantastic book, Barton.

 

Yep, I'd love to own that one day

[fantastic_four]

But I just had to say that THIS:

 

... However, on the other hand, if there is nothing wrong with pressing, or dry cleaning, what is the big deal ABOUT putting it on the label?

 

... Why would those that hide what they do they "benefit"so much if just a "few" people care?

 

... That way people can make an informed choice of what books they want to buy.

 

 

...makes the most sense of all to me. Particularly if it is true that multiple pressings can cause defects, it would be good to know, so you don't inadvertently make things worse instead of better.

 

It bases its idea upon the idea that there's "nothing wrong with pressing," but not one person in the entire thread believes that the entire hobby is in agreement on that. CCS would have to close up shop if they did this, which I presume is what most of the people disingenuously pretending like pressing is no big deal also would prefer to have happen.