Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[jimjum12]

Truth be told, I probably shouldn't even be posting in this thread, as my sweet spot is a raw book in Fine Plus to Very Fine that I can pull out of a mylar and handle often without much harm to it. It's just so much simpler for me that way. I don't want to lose my friendships with any of you over this, so I may just watch friom the sidelines from here out.

 

You're an UPPER-MID-GRADE GUY?!?! I'm shocked and have lost all respect for you.

 

Merry Christmas!!!

 

Happy Holidays to you too, wise guy..... GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[mysterio]

These books are being mass produced. This is mass destruction. How can anybody argue this is a good thing.

 

 

I'm not convinced that this #17 is Costanza'd either, at least not from this scan. ASM #17 typically has a fairly goofy cut along the right edge to begin with, plus this copy doesn't have pages showing all along the right edge.

 

From viewing the examples in this thread and elsewhere on the web, I have formed my own opinion of what raises a red flag for me as far as a Costanza book. Pages slightly leaning out up top, as on this #17, is not a concern for me. It is when you see a consistent strip of paper showing on the right edge, especially past the mid-point of the front cover (moving down from the top edge) that seems suspicious to me. I just haven't seen many SA books that consistently show page edges down the full right side of the cover, especially if that edge is even (since the pages seem to sort of lean out at the top corner). See these books posted earlier by namisgr for examples of this, and compare to the #17 above. The point of the upper right corner is also fairly telling, as others have pointed out, and I just don't see that on the #17.

 

And Happy Holidays to all!

 

 

If I could find the scan of the Hulk #1 7.0 from the last ComicConnect auction you'd see another prime example.

[jimbo_707]

I don't know whether that book you posted a scan of is shrunken or not, but either way, you've guaranteed the owner of that book won't be selling it to some who read this thread whether you're right or not.

You're jumping to a conclusion on that. Someone could easily bid after seeing this thread and dismissing my suspicions.

 

Given the fact that many of the of the Don and Maggie Thompson books exhibited shrinkage, as far as I'm concerned every book in that collection is suspect.

 

Instead of blaming me, blame whomever decided to press some or all of those books.

 

Most of all, blame the greediness of the CCS crew for doing more damage to the hobby than the WWII paper drives.

[slym2none]

Wow.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[mysterio]

Most of all, blame the greediness of the CCS crew for doing more damage to the hobby than the the WWII paper drives.

 

Do you expect people to take your opinion seriously with statements like this?

[jimbo_707]

Most of all, blame the greediness of the CCS crew for doing more damage to the hobby than the the WWII paper drives.

 

Do you expect people to take your opinion seriously with statements like this?

I meant the statement in all seriousness, so why wouldn't I?

 

Whether or not they are still doing it today, they continued pressing books long after it must have been obvious to them that they were shrinking the covers.

 

Any enjoyment I might have gotten out of the hobby this year, and then some, has been negated by them.

[fantastic_four]

I don't know whether that book you posted a scan of is shrunken or not, but either way, you've guaranteed the owner of that book won't be selling it to some who read this thread whether you're right or not.

You're jumping to a conclusion on that. Someone could easily bid after seeing this thread and dismissing my suspicions.

 

Given the fact that many of the of the Don and Maggie Thompson books exhibited shrinkage, as far as I'm concerned every book in that collection is suspect.

 

Instead of blaming me, blame whomever decided to press some or all of those books.

 

Most of all, blame the greediness of the CCS crew for doing more damage to the hobby than the WWII paper drives.

 

I'm not jumping to conclusions by pointing out that people have a tendency to jump to conclusions far too easily. And I'll blame you all. Stop putting a spotlight on books that may have not been shrunken by Matt at all.

[Bomber-Bob]

To protect the seller I cannot show you evidence but I recently was shown the CCS invoice for some books along with before and after scans. The only books that did not display this Constanza effect were a couple that were not pressed = No Service by CCS.

Obviously Matt has too big of a fan base to put any pressure on him via the these Boards. I like Matt also, it's like he went to the Dark Side or something after becoming CCS. I am truly sad to see this happening but it is. As previously stated, I now inquire about any suspicious book of interest as to who did the pressing. As an individual, that's all I can do.

[BEAUMONTS]

That is truly sad, you would think that with his caliber of work he would be able to access his own work with a discerning eye.

[Hammerhead]

Both in the same auction, both have exactly the same wrap on the spine.

IMO, the 8.0 looks better !

 

 

 

WOW....I agree with you. The 8.0 from the scan looks great and better then the peek-through 9.6!

[fantastic_four]

To protect the seller I cannot show you evidence but I recently was shown the CCS invoice for some books along with before and after scans. The only books that did not display this Constanza effect were a couple that were not pressed = No Service by CCS.

Obviously Matt has too big of a fan base to put any pressure on him via the these Boards. I like Matt also, it's like he went to the Dark Side or something after becoming CCS. I am truly sad to see this happening but it is. As previously stated, I now inquire about any suspicious book of interest as to who did the pressing. As an individual, that's all I can do.

 

Are you suggesting the pressing from that invoice was done recently? What month?

 

Matt didn't cross over to any Dark Side. He skirts the line and sometimes crosses it but tries to stay ethical. That was true long before he worked with Heritage or CGC. He's trying to make a living from comics, so I can mostly respect what he does even when he screws up.

[fantastic_four]

The 8.0 from the scan looks great and better then the peek-through 9.6!

 

Cover translucency is mostly a creation of scan lighting. It almost NEVER exists in the real world. Pretty much any light-colored cover can display translucency under the right scanner settings.

[pickycollector]

These books are being mass produced. This is mass destruction. How can anybody argue this is a good thing.

 

 

I'm not convinced that this #17 is Costanza'd either, at least not from this scan. ASM #17 typically has a fairly goofy cut along the right edge to begin with, plus this copy doesn't have pages showing all along the right edge.

 

From viewing the examples in this thread and elsewhere on the web, I have formed my own opinion of what raises a red flag for me as far as a Costanza book. Pages slightly leaning out up top, as on this #17, is not a concern for me. It is when you see a consistent strip of paper showing on the right edge, especially past the mid-point of the front cover (moving down from the top edge) that seems suspicious to me. I just haven't seen many SA books that consistently show page edges down the full right side of the cover, especially if that edge is even (since the pages seem to sort of lean out at the top corner). See these books posted earlier by namisgr for examples of this, and compare to the #17 above. The point of the upper right corner is also fairly telling, as others have pointed out, and I just don't see that on the #17.

 

And Happy Holidays to all!

 

 

If I could find the scan of the Hulk #1 7.0 from the last ComicConnect auction you'd see another prime example.

Excellent analysis

[Hammerhead]

These books are being mass produced. This is mass destruction. How can anybody argue this is a good thing.

 

 

I'm not convinced that this #17 is Costanza'd either, at least not from this scan. ASM #17 typically has a fairly goofy cut along the right edge to begin with, plus this copy doesn't have pages showing all along the right edge.

 

From viewing the examples in this thread and elsewhere on the web, I have formed my own opinion of what raises a red flag for me as far as a Costanza book. Pages slightly leaning out up top, as on this #17, is not a concern for me. It is when you see a consistent strip of paper showing on the right edge, especially past the mid-point of the front cover (moving down from the top edge) that seems suspicious to me. I just haven't seen many SA books that consistently show page edges down the full right side of the cover, especially if that edge is even (since the pages seem to sort of lean out at the top corner). See these books posted earlier by namisgr for examples of this, and compare to the #17 above. The point of the upper right corner is also fairly telling, as others have pointed out, and I just don't see that on the #17.

 

And Happy Holidays to all!

 

 

If I could find the scan of the Hulk #1 7.0 from the last ComicConnect auction you'd see another prime example.

 

To me all 3 of these comics appear to have a little more showing on the top then the bottom. The 17 is more to a certain degree. The 17 looks as if the whole cover is slightly, very slightly angled counter clockwise when/if it was pressed.

 

I have noticed newsprint poking out on silver age comics that are raw as well but nine out of ten times the cover shows some degree of front to back cover mis-wrap. I would guess to say there are many, many tricks and ways to press comics that the majority of collectors are unawre of.

[Hammerhead]

I don't know whether that book you posted a scan of is shrunken or not, but either way, you've guaranteed the owner of that book won't be selling it to some who read this thread whether you're right or not.

You're jumping to a conclusion on that. Someone could easily bid after seeing this thread and dismissing my suspicions.

 

Given the fact that many of the of the Don and Maggie Thompson books exhibited shrinkage, as far as I'm concerned every book in that collection is suspect.

 

Instead of blaming me, blame whomever decided to press some or all of those books.

 

Most of all, blame the greediness of the CCS crew for doing more damage to the hobby than the WWII paper drives.

 

Is there any boardie that are friends with Don and Maggie Thompson that could ask them if several of their early Marvels had issues with newsprint paper showing while in their possesion??

 

I think this was asked early but over looked or ignored.

[fantastic_four]

Most of all, blame the greediness of the CCS crew for doing more damage to the hobby than the the WWII paper drives.

 

Do you expect people to take your opinion seriously with statements like this?

 

Oh good lord, this went by me the first time I read it. Jimbo, jimbo, jimbo...your talent for overblown hyperbole knows no bounds.

[Hammerhead]

The 8.0 from the scan looks great and better then the peek-through 9.6!

 

Cover translucency is mostly a creation of scan lighting. It almost NEVER exists in the real world. Pretty much any light-colored cover can display translucency under the right scanner settings.

 

Thanks for the info. I hardly ever sell comics and nothing ever in this price range (because I don't own any) or a good scanner. So I have relatively NO scanner/comics expirience.

 

Unfortuanetly I haven't bought any comics in a few years either except for the occasional cheap/used TPB strictly for reading.

[fantastic_four]

The 8.0 from the scan looks great and better then the peek-through 9.6!

 

Cover translucency is mostly a creation of scan lighting. It almost NEVER exists in the real world. Pretty much any light-colored cover can display translucency under the right scanner settings.

 

Thanks for the info. I hardly ever sell comics and nothing ever in this price range (because I don't own any) or a good scanner. So I have relatively NO scanner/comics expirience.

 

Unfortuanetly I haven't bought any comics in a few years either except for the occasional cheap/used TPB strictly for reading.

 

You can view the effect yourself without a scanner with only a lamp--hold a light-colored cover under almost any light source and tilt it around, and you can eventually see through the cover a bit. I've only tried this myself with Silver Age books such as the one you were commenting on...not sure if it happens with cover stocks from later ages. Last book I remember looking at translucency with like that was my raw copy of X-Men #8 which has a white background.

[jimbo_707]

To protect the seller I cannot show you evidence but I recently was shown the CCS invoice for some books along with before and after scans. The only books that did not display this Constanza effect were a couple that were not pressed = No Service by CCS.

Obviously Matt has too big of a fan base to put any pressure on him via the these Boards. I like Matt also, it's like he went to the Dark Side or something after becoming CCS. I am truly sad to see this happening but it is. As previously stated, I now inquire about any suspicious book of interest as to who did the pressing. As an individual, that's all I can do.

 

Are you suggesting the pressing from that invoice was done recently? What month?

 

Matt didn't cross over to any Dark Side. He skirts the line and sometimes crosses it but tries to stay ethical. That was true long before he worked with Heritage or CGC. He's trying to make a living from comics, so I can mostly respect what he does even when he screws up.

You're more generous than I am. I can't respect someone who "skirts the line and sometimes crosses it." The people who get my respect are the ones who make an effort to be above reproach, even if it means leaving money on the table.

[Ghost Town]

Obviously Matt has too big of a fan base to put any pressure on him via the these Boards.

Bob, I think we can still put pressure on Matt and CGC on the boards. In fact, I think it'll help the situation with the Costanza'd books.

 

But I also think it would fair to use a bit more caution with the books posted. For example, the last Spideys you pointed out were graded before this thread even started. And as somebody else pointed out, I don't think the ASM #17 is a clear cut case of cover shrinkage. No doubt, the other books are disturbing.

 

Matt did say CSS was trying to address the issue. I'm curious to see any books that have been through the CSS/CGC mill after this whole issue came to light. I know some of the Don and Maggie and Dr. Fate books might have gone through the treatment. But from a very quick look on my part, I don't see much on the Cole Schave level.