• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

A second copy of CGC 9.0 Action Comics #1 on the census (7/22/14)

Started by valiantman,

1,507 posts in this topic

lou_fine

lou_fine

Posted
Posted
Ebay has a page up announcing the sale. There's a video with Darren Adams and Matt Nelson discussing the book's history and significance. A lot of it's a sales pitch, but there's some interesting information in there.

 

Ebay Action 1

 

Watched the video clip on the origin story of this copy and the timeline certainly sounds interesting and a bit confusing!

 

Book was purchased in 1938 by the OO and placed in a wooden cedar chest until the late 70's or early 80's. Then discovered by a gentleman who had placed an ad for purchasing comic books. This gentleman kept the book for a few years before selling it to a prominent dealer a few years later. This prominent dealer then apparently kept the book for about 30 years before selling it to Darren Adams.

 

The timeline does not sound correct as this basically meant the this particular copy of Action Comics #1 was sold raw to Darren within the past few years. Does it make sense for a prominent dealer to be selling this kind of book raw as it does not appear to be previously graded based upon the census information which we have. ???

 

I would assume the timeline from their little story is probably off by 10 years or so, otherwise it really doesn't make much sense given today's market conditions with respect to grading.

 

A reposting from the GA thread on this same book.

 

Does it make sense to anybody that this book would have been sold by a prominent dealer only a few years ago as a raw book without having it slabbed by CGC? ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites
delekkerste

delekkerste

Posted
Posted

Right! Pro bono. Uh-uh.

 

What could they do at this point? Proxy bid for a fee or bid outright with expectations of a resale. Until I heard it was in an auction, yeah, delekkerste's words kind of rang true to me

 

It happens all the time in the fine art world. Big dealer represents a buyer at auction who wishes to remain anonymous and is the only name attached to a big sale.

 

Or, they could proxy bid, maybe put up some of the financing, claim credit for the outright purchase of the book themselves and all the publicity that entails before the book eventually ends up with the true buyer in a pre-arranged deal (cough, ASM #328 cover art, cough, cough).

 

Or, they could make a run at it themselves, in whole or as part of a consortium. They could easily take much/all of the credit while the financial backers or main buyer remain under the radar as desired.

 

Aha! So when pooh-poohing the book to sfcityduck, that was a ploy to scare off competitive bidding...

 

Did you mean to respond to me? I didn't comment on the book itself at all, and certainly didn't "pooh-pooh" it to sfcityduck or anyone else. (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Heronext

Heronext

Posted
Posted
Ebay has a page up announcing the sale. There's a video with Darren Adams and Matt Nelson discussing the book's history and significance. A lot of it's a sales pitch, but there's some interesting information in there.

 

Ebay Action 1

 

Watched the video clip on the origin story of this copy and the timeline certainly sounds interesting and a bit confusing!

 

Book was purchased in 1938 by the OO and placed in a wooden cedar chest until the late 70's or early 80's. Then discovered by a gentleman who had placed an ad for purchasing comic books. This gentleman kept the book for a few years before selling it to a prominent dealer a few years later. This prominent dealer then apparently kept the book for about 30 years before selling it to Darren Adams.

 

The timeline does not sound correct as this basically meant the this particular copy of Action Comics #1 was sold raw to Darren within the past few years. Does it make sense for a prominent dealer to be selling this kind of book raw as it does not appear to be previously graded based upon the census information which we have. ???

 

I would assume the timeline from their little story is probably off by 10 years or so, otherwise it really doesn't make much sense given today's market conditions with respect to grading.

 

A reposting from the GA thread on this same book.

 

Does it make sense to anybody that this book would have been sold by a prominent dealer only a few years ago as a raw book without having it slabbed by CGC? ???

 

Could have happened.

 

This "mystery poster" (which someone posted before) says "about 10 years". Could have been just before CGC opened

 

http://en.reddit.com/r/comicbooks/comments/2bgmiv/a_90_cgc_rated_copy_of_action_comics_1_is_going/cj5gvaw

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lou_fine

lou_fine

Posted
Posted
It's a nice book but 9.0 is a bit generous IMHO.

 

I thought the same after seeing the top and bottom of the spine at the back cover.

If everyone's saying it's a deserved 9.0 or should be lower because of the bindery tears at the top and bottom of the spine on the back cover, CGC doesn't usually deduct for bindery tears. I've seen them give 9.6s for books with bindery tears of about the same magnitude.

 

 

Yes, I thought production related bindery tears were acceptable even on HG GA books. Yet in their grading notes, this appears to be one of the primary reasons why the book was knocked down to only a 9.0. They seem to have graded this book a lot tougher than other prominent GA books. Especially in light of how the Cage copy looks in comparison to this copy, but yet came out with only the same grade. This must be one of the nicest looking 9.0 GA books out there.

 

Almost makes you wonder if there is not a lot "politics" involved when it comes to grading books of this magnitude. hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Heronext

Heronext

Posted
Posted

Right! Pro bono. Uh-uh.

 

What could they do at this point? Proxy bid for a fee or bid outright with expectations of a resale. Until I heard it was in an auction, yeah, delekkerste's words kind of rang true to me

 

It happens all the time in the fine art world. Big dealer represents a buyer at auction who wishes to remain anonymous and is the only name attached to a big sale.

 

Or, they could proxy bid, maybe put up some of the financing, claim credit for the outright purchase of the book themselves and all the publicity that entails before the book eventually ends up with the true buyer in a pre-arranged deal (cough, ASM #328 cover art, cough, cough).

 

Or, they could make a run at it themselves, in whole or as part of a consortium. They could easily take much/all of the credit while the financial backers or main buyer remain under the radar as desired.

 

Aha! So when pooh-poohing the book to sfcityduck, that was a ploy to scare off competitive bidding...

 

Did you mean to respond to me? I didn't comment on the book itself at all, and certainly didn't "pooh-pooh" it to sfcityduck or anyone else. (shrug)

 

No, sfcityduck said he was at SDCC and Metro pooh-poohed the book to HIM.

 

Peter Portugal just quoted this back a page or 2 :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chrisco37

chrisco37

Posted
Posted
It's a nice book but 9.0 is a bit generous IMHO.

 

I thought the same after seeing the top and bottom of the spine at the back cover.

If everyone's saying it's a deserved 9.0 or should be lower because of the bindery tears at the top and bottom of the spine on the back cover, CGC doesn't usually deduct for bindery tears. I've seen them give 9.6s for books with bindery tears of about the same magnitude.

 

 

Yes, I thought production related bindery tears were acceptable even on HG GA books. Yet in their grading notes, this appears to be one of the primary reasons why the book was knocked down to only a 9.0. They seem to have graded this book a lot tougher than other prominent GA books. Especially in light of how the Cage copy looks in comparison to this copy, but yet came out with only the same grade. This must be one of the nicest looking 9.0 GA books out there.

Almost makes you wonder if there is not a lot "politics" involved when it comes to grading books of this magnitude. hm

 

It's a lot nicer looking than the Marvel Comics #1 Pay copy. That's for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mutant Manatee

Mutant Manatee

Posted
Posted
I now the link to all the pages is in here somewhere but I cannot find it again..

 

 

 

It can be found here:

 

 

http://www.cgccomics.com/1134755001/

 

 

The link to Census Info doesn't work on that page. Something their developers didn't get right

 

It works just fine for me, both the Census link at the top of the page as well as the one at the bottom of the page.

 

Perhaps you need to be logged in to cgccomics.com and not just the boards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Heronext

Heronext

Posted
Posted
I now the link to all the pages is in here somewhere but I cannot find it again..

 

 

 

It can be found here:

 

 

http://www.cgccomics.com/1134755001/

 

 

The link to Census Info doesn't work on that page. Something their developers didn't get right

 

It works just fine for me, both the Census link at the top of the page as well as the one at the bottom of the page.

 

Perhaps you need to be logged in to cgccomics.com and not just the boards.

 

I am logged in.

 

This is what I see:

 

500 - Internal server error.

There is a problem with the resource you are looking for, and it cannot be displayed.

 

and this is where it goes:

 

http://www.cgccomics.com/census/grades_standard.asp?ComicID={0}

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peewee22

peewee22

Posted
Posted
It's a nice book but 9.0 is a bit generous IMHO.

 

I thought the same after seeing the top and bottom of the spine at the back cover.

If everyone's saying it's a deserved 9.0 or should be lower because of the bindery tears at the top and bottom of the spine on the back cover, CGC doesn't usually deduct for bindery tears. I've seen them give 9.6s for books with bindery tears of about the same magnitude.

 

 

Yes, I thought production related bindery tears were acceptable even on HG GA books. Yet in their grading notes, this appears to be one of the primary reasons why the book was knocked down to only a 9.0. They seem to have graded this book a lot tougher than other prominent GA books. Especially in light of how the Cage copy looks in comparison to this copy, but yet came out with only the same grade. This must be one of the nicest looking 9.0 GA books out there.

Almost makes you wonder if there is not a lot "politics" involved when it comes to grading books of this magnitude. hm

 

It's a lot nicer looking than the Marvel Comics #1 Pay copy. That's for sure.

 

What grade is the Pay copy..I forget?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chrisco37

chrisco37

Posted
Posted
It's a nice book but 9.0 is a bit generous IMHO.

 

I thought the same after seeing the top and bottom of the spine at the back cover.

If everyone's saying it's a deserved 9.0 or should be lower because of the bindery tears at the top and bottom of the spine on the back cover, CGC doesn't usually deduct for bindery tears. I've seen them give 9.6s for books with bindery tears of about the same magnitude.

 

 

Yes, I thought production related bindery tears were acceptable even on HG GA books. Yet in their grading notes, this appears to be one of the primary reasons why the book was knocked down to only a 9.0. They seem to have graded this book a lot tougher than other prominent GA books. Especially in light of how the Cage copy looks in comparison to this copy, but yet came out with only the same grade. This must be one of the nicest looking 9.0 GA books out there.

Almost makes you wonder if there is not a lot "politics" involved when it comes to grading books of this magnitude. hm

 

It's a lot nicer looking than the Marvel Comics #1 Pay copy. That's for sure.

 

What grade is the Pay copy..I forget?

 

9.0 when it was originally graded (don't know if it's been re-graded).

 

 

Antique4.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
r100comics

r100comics

Posted
Posted
I now the link to all the pages is in here somewhere but I cannot find it again..

 

 

 

It can be found here:

 

 

http://www.cgccomics.com/1134755001/

 

 

Thanks :)

 

 

Th

 

I wince every time I see that inside cover / 1st page scan.

 

No wonder it's got spine stress.

 

Did they really open this book almost flat to scan the pages ?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Treco

Treco

Posted
Posted
It's a nice book but 9.0 is a bit generous IMHO.

 

I thought the same after seeing the top and bottom of the spine at the back cover.

If everyone's saying it's a deserved 9.0 or should be lower because of the bindery tears at the top and bottom of the spine on the back cover, CGC doesn't usually deduct for bindery tears. I've seen them give 9.6s for books with bindery tears of about the same magnitude.

 

 

Yes, I thought production related bindery tears were acceptable even on HG GA books. Yet in their grading notes, this appears to be one of the primary reasons why the book was knocked down to only a 9.0. They seem to have graded this book a lot tougher than other prominent GA books. Especially in light of how the Cage copy looks in comparison to this copy, but yet came out with only the same grade. This must be one of the nicest looking 9.0 GA books out there.

Almost makes you wonder if there is not a lot "politics" involved when it comes to grading books of this magnitude. hm

 

It's a lot nicer looking than the Marvel Comics #1 Pay copy. That's for sure.

 

What grade is the Pay copy..I forget?

 

Pay Copy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peewee22

peewee22

Posted
Posted
It's a nice book but 9.0 is a bit generous IMHO.

 

I thought the same after seeing the top and bottom of the spine at the back cover.

If everyone's saying it's a deserved 9.0 or should be lower because of the bindery tears at the top and bottom of the spine on the back cover, CGC doesn't usually deduct for bindery tears. I've seen them give 9.6s for books with bindery tears of about the same magnitude.

 

 

Yes, I thought production related bindery tears were acceptable even on HG GA books. Yet in their grading notes, this appears to be one of the primary reasons why the book was knocked down to only a 9.0. They seem to have graded this book a lot tougher than other prominent GA books. Especially in light of how the Cage copy looks in comparison to this copy, but yet came out with only the same grade. This must be one of the nicest looking 9.0 GA books out there.

Almost makes you wonder if there is not a lot "politics" involved when it comes to grading books of this magnitude. hm

 

It's a lot nicer looking than the Marvel Comics #1 Pay copy. That's for sure.

 

What grade is the Pay copy..I forget?

 

Pay Copy

 

Ug-lee.

 

Who wrote the novel on the front cover...J. Steinbeck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lou_fine

lou_fine

Posted
Posted
It's a nice book but 9.0 is a bit generous IMHO.

 

I thought the same after seeing the top and bottom of the spine at the back cover.

If everyone's saying it's a deserved 9.0 or should be lower because of the bindery tears at the top and bottom of the spine on the back cover, CGC doesn't usually deduct for bindery tears. I've seen them give 9.6s for books with bindery tears of about the same magnitude.

 

 

Yes, I thought production related bindery tears were acceptable even on HG GA books. Yet in their grading notes, this appears to be one of the primary reasons why the book was knocked down to only a 9.0. They seem to have graded this book a lot tougher than other prominent GA books. Especially in light of how the Cage copy looks in comparison to this copy, but yet came out with only the same grade. This must be one of the nicest looking 9.0 GA books out there.

Almost makes you wonder if there is not a lot "politics" involved when it comes to grading books of this magnitude. hm

 

It's a lot nicer looking than the Marvel Comics #1 Pay copy. That's for sure.

 

Well, if a more prominent or big-time CGC submittor snaps up the book and resubmits the book, I wouldn't be at all surprsied if it came back as a 9.2 on a straight resub without any additional work being done to the book. :boo:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike's Rack

Mike's Rack

Posted
Posted
It's a nice book but 9.0 is a bit generous IMHO.

 

I thought the same after seeing the top and bottom of the spine at the back cover.

If everyone's saying it's a deserved 9.0 or should be lower because of the bindery tears at the top and bottom of the spine on the back cover, CGC doesn't usually deduct for bindery tears. I've seen them give 9.6s for books with bindery tears of about the same magnitude.

 

 

Yes, I thought production related bindery tears were acceptable even on HG GA books. Yet in their grading notes, this appears to be one of the primary reasons why the book was knocked down to only a 9.0. They seem to have graded this book a lot tougher than other prominent GA books. Especially in light of how the Cage copy looks in comparison to this copy, but yet came out with only the same grade. This must be one of the nicest looking 9.0 GA books out there.

Almost makes you wonder if there is not a lot "politics" involved when it comes to grading books of this magnitude. hm

 

It's a lot nicer looking than the Marvel Comics #1 Pay copy. That's for sure.

 

What grade is the Pay copy..I forget?

 

Pay Copy

 

Ug-lee.

 

Who wrote the novel on the front cover...J. Steinbeck?

Hence the moniker "Pay" copy :baiting:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
delekkerste

delekkerste

Posted
Posted
No, sfcityduck said he was at SDCC and Metro pooh-poohed the book to HIM.

 

Peter Portugal just quoted this back a page or 2 :thumbsup:

 

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. (thumbs u

 

I don't know if they are posturing or not...just saying that it's possible that they would want to get involved in a high-profile transaction like this one even if they are not the seller...as they have done in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Heronext

Heronext

Posted
Posted
I now the link to all the pages is in here somewhere but I cannot find it again..

 

 

 

It can be found here:

 

 

http://www.cgccomics.com/1134755001/

 

 

Thanks :)

 

 

Th

 

I wince every time I see that inside cover / 1st page scan.

 

No wonder it's got spine stress.

 

Did they really open this book almost flat to scan the pages ?

 

 

 

One would imagine they took great care; there are ways to scan a comic without opening it out flat

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing