Action Comics #2 CGC 9.4

[cheetah]

Well. I enjoy a variety of material as well and while I can't speak for you or Bill I think it's great when people can appreciate a wide variety of stuff as opposed to only knowing 1961-1988 marvels, for example. Obviously neither of you guys fit into that category and we can all collect what we like and yes we can't buy it all, but some peoples collections do seem so focused to the point where you wonder how they can fully appreciate the medium and it's history. Again, not at all saying that's either of you guys - quite the opposite - but that's how I sometimes react to 'lines drawn' that seem overly constrictive. The Marvel Zombie syndrome being the most obvious manifestation.

 

I was only trying to distance my comments from the book and not get labeled as a hater because I was too good for it. The book itself is irrelevant to my problems with a cleaned cover getting a vague notation in a conserved holder.

 

DCs are wonderous and I envy all who collect them. For now, I will stick with the 200+ GA titles I already collect.

[Sqeggs]

The biggest reason why I like to collect GA is to own something that is old and rare. Something that has survived time. If a book was soiled at some point, chances are, that copy isn't the right book for my collection. If it was the only copy that existed, I would want to buy it soiled, not cleaned. I'm not the only person who feels this way. That's why this book won't sell for full 9.4 value.

You know I also collect high grade books and therefore prefer books that have never had any damage. The reason I collect high grade is for the look. I want something that looks as close to newsstand fresh as possible. Mile Highs, Allentowns, Spokanes, those books have been handled very little and have colors that pop. I love them for the way they look. It isn't primarily about value for me, other than the inherent value I derive from looking at a beautiful book.

 

Since the eye appeal of the book is so important to me I would much prefer a book that had a clean cover than a book that was all stained and dirty if I had to make that choice.

 

Give me your cleaned, your scribbled on, your restored and huddled masses. I like COMICS! Plain and simple folks

 

Yearning to breath free of their slabs?

[batman_fan]

Isn't the whole point of the restored market to give greater access to books that would normally be out of reach for those who do not mind restored?

 

-J.

There is no restored market. There is a comic book market. There are restored comic books books. The point of restoration is to make ugly books more presentable. When disclosed and labeled it really doesn't have anything to do with price. All of the talk about restoration vs. price in this thread seems to be in direct correlation to the views of collectors who tend to poo poo on books with restoration because they don't view those books as worthy of being in their collections. Those same collectors generally also do not collect low grade books, yet they don't come on and rag on those books because of the defects. In this case the book is clearly labeled as to what has been done to it. So why is it even a discussion? The comic market will decide its value, not the restored market...or the conserved market...or any other subset which is looked on as inferior by the high grade collecting purists who love to bash restoration.

 

I don't collect DCs and never will. .

 

This parochial, dogmatic, line of thinking befuddles me. I'd leap over a stack of Planet Comics to get to a pile of ragged More Funs, but that doesn't mean I won't have Planets in my collection. I've never understood, and never will understand, why comic collectors draw these asinine lines in their collections. Comics are comics. There are good ones, bad ones, and great ones in all of the publishers in my view

 

I don't get called asanine very often, Bill. I'm not a fan of the DC universe and don't have the desire to collect them. I can't collect everything and it seemed an easy line for me to draw.

 

I'm not a praying man, but if I were, I'd get on my knees every day and night and thank baby Jesus for my wife, my son, and for Cheetah not collecting DCs.

 

Amen.

 

Amen from the choir !

[ciorac]

The biggest reason why I like to collect GA is to own something that is old and rare. Something that has survived time. If a book was soiled at some point, chances are, that copy isn't the right book for my collection. If it was the only copy that existed, I would want to buy it soiled, not cleaned. I'm not the only person who feels this way. That's why this book won't sell for full 9.4 value.

You know I also collect high grade books and therefore prefer books that have never had any damage. The reason I collect high grade is for the look. I want something that looks as close to newsstand fresh as possible. Mile Highs, Allentowns, Spokanes, those books have been handled very little and have colors that pop. I love them for the way they look. It isn't primarily about value for me, other than the inherent value I derive from looking at a beautiful book.

 

Since the eye appeal of the book is so important to me I would much prefer a book that had a clean cover than a book that was all stained and dirty if I had to make that choice.

 

Give me your cleaned, your scribbled on, your restored and huddled masses. I like COMICS! Plain and simple folks

 

Yearning to breath free of their slabs?

 

95% of my collection is raw. Very few slabs. Cracked one this morning in fact

[ciorac]

Well. I enjoy a variety of material as well and while I can't speak for you or Bill I think it's great when people can appreciate a wide variety of stuff as opposed to only knowing 1961-1988 marvels, for example. Obviously neither of you guys fit into that category and we can all collect what we like and yes we can't buy it all, but some peoples collections do seem so focused to the point where you wonder how they can fully appreciate the medium and it's history. Again, not at all saying that's either of you guys - quite the opposite - but that's how I sometimes react to 'lines drawn' that seem overly constrictive. The Marvel Zombie syndrome being the most obvious manifestation.

 

Those ridiculous lines that collectors won't cross remind me of this scene from Blazing Saddles

 

 

 

[Primetime]

Isn't the whole point of the restored market to give greater access to books that would normally be out of reach for those who do not mind restored?

 

-J.

There is no restored market. There is a comic book market. There are restored comic books books. The point of restoration is to make ugly books more presentable. When disclosed and labeled it really doesn't have anything to do with price. All of the talk about restoration vs. price in this thread seems to be in direct correlation to the views of collectors who tend to poo poo on books with restoration because they don't view those books as worthy of being in their collections. Those same collectors generally also do not collect low grade books, yet they don't come on and rag on those books because of the defects. In this case the book is clearly labeled as to what has been done to it. So why is it even a discussion? The comic market will decide its value, not the restored market...or the conserved market...or any other subset which is looked on as inferior by the high grade collecting purists who love to bash restoration.

 

I don't collect DCs and never will. .

 

This parochial, dogmatic, line of thinking befuddles me. I'd leap over a stack of Planet Comics to get to a pile of ragged More Funs, but that doesn't mean I won't have Planets in my collection. I've never understood, and never will understand, why comic collectors draw these asinine lines in their collections. Comics are comics. There are good ones, bad ones, and great ones in all of the publishers in my view

 

I don't get called asanine very often, Bill. I'm not a fan of the DC universe and don't have the desire to collect them. I can't collect everything and it seemed an easy line for me to draw.

 

I'm not a praying man, but if I were, I'd get on my knees every day and night and thank baby Jesus for my wife, my son, and for Cheetah not collecting DCs.

 

Amen.

I'm a praying man and I'm glad your Timely itch is a small one at best

[Primetime]

I just got in a collection of big logo golden age DC. Most are mid-grade with very nice paper but many have a sticker with the original owners name stuck right in the middle of the cover, right in the middle of the art. Purists would say "leave the sticker there.It has historical significance. It is the way it is and should remain for eternity!" Unfortunately most of those same purists wouldn't want these books because they have a big sticker in the middle of the cover. If the stickers were properly removed the books would be much more presentable and desirable to a vast majority of collectors. Properly removing the stickers would involve using chemicals. They would be restored. In this perverse market they would be considered to have a lower value being restored even though more people would consider buying them without the sticker than with. It just doesn't make much sense.

the stickers remind me of a Bat 1 that had a huge square sticker upside down on the front cover. I think Matt took it off and it was in a past Overstreet..anyone recall that?

[ciorac]

Isn't the whole point of the restored market to give greater access to books that would normally be out of reach for those who do not mind restored?

 

-J.

There is no restored market. There is a comic book market. There are restored comic books books. The point of restoration is to make ugly books more presentable. When disclosed and labeled it really doesn't have anything to do with price. All of the talk about restoration vs. price in this thread seems to be in direct correlation to the views of collectors who tend to poo poo on books with restoration because they don't view those books as worthy of being in their collections. Those same collectors generally also do not collect low grade books, yet they don't come on and rag on those books because of the defects. In this case the book is clearly labeled as to what has been done to it. So why is it even a discussion? The comic market will decide its value, not the restored market...or the conserved market...or any other subset which is looked on as inferior by the high grade collecting purists who love to bash restoration.

 

I don't collect DCs and never will. .

 

This parochial, dogmatic, line of thinking befuddles me. I'd leap over a stack of Planet Comics to get to a pile of ragged More Funs, but that doesn't mean I won't have Planets in my collection. I've never understood, and never will understand, why comic collectors draw these asinine lines in their collections. Comics are comics. There are good ones, bad ones, and great ones in all of the publishers in my view

 

I don't get called asanine very often, Bill. I'm not a fan of the DC universe and don't have the desire to collect them. I can't collect everything and it seemed an easy line for me to draw.

 

I'm not a praying man, but if I were, I'd get on my knees every day and night and thank baby Jesus for my wife, my son, and for Cheetah not collecting DCs.

 

Amen.

 

Amen from the choir !

 

Jeff plays at the opposite end of the spectrum from me, so I welcome his participation

[zzutak]

For now, I will stick with the 200+ GA titles I already collect.

[Cat-Man_America]

The biggest reason why I like to collect GA is to own something that is old and rare. Something that has survived time. If a book was soiled at some point, chances are, that copy isn't the right book for my collection. If it was the only copy that existed, I would want to buy it soiled, not cleaned. I'm not the only person who feels this way. That's why this book won't sell for full 9.4 value.

You know I also collect high grade books and therefore prefer books that have never had any damage. The reason I collect high grade is for the look. I want something that looks as close to newsstand fresh as possible. Mile Highs, Allentowns, Spokanes, those books have been handled very little and have colors that pop. I love them for the way they look. It isn't primarily about value for me, other than the inherent value I derive from looking at a beautiful book.

 

Since the eye appeal of the book is so important to me I would much prefer a book that had a clean cover than a book that was all stained and dirty if I had to make that choice.

 

Give me your cleaned, your scribbled on, your restored and huddled masses. I like COMICS! Plain and simple folks

 

 

(thumbs u

 

 

[Red84]

There is a subset of collectors in the comic community known as The Cult of Damage (I think it was founded in the1940s by Fu Manchu, but I'm not sure). For them, the comic itself is not important, it is the damage that it has accumulated that is sacrosanct.

 

Sure... adding paper, color, chemical bleaches, etc., is restoration for better or worse depending upon the situation, and has clearly altered the item itself. But the idea that a careful removal of dust, dirt, skin oils, teriyaki sauce, etc., has "harmed" or "devalued" an item (even though all of the above will continue to inflict even more long-term damage) is a bit bizarre.

 

I suspect there is not a single Old Masters painting hanging in a museum that hasn't been thoroughly cleaned... for its own benefit. I'm sure there is no Gutenberg Bible that hasn't been rebound, repaired, and deacified. I still wish books would just be given a final-assessment grade rather than a "restored grade", or an "apparent grade", or a "conserved grade" or a "qualified grade"... but I really do think in the end there is a decided difference between conservation procedures, restoration procedures, and just plain amateur taping and gluing. It is not all the "same stuff".

 

 

Very Well Said!

[comicnoir]

I just got in a collection of big logo golden age DC. Most are mid-grade with very nice paper but many have a sticker with the original owners name stuck right in the middle of the cover, right in the middle of the art. Purists would say "leave the sticker there.It has historical significance. It is the way it is and should remain for eternity!" Unfortunately most of those same purists wouldn't want these books because they have a big sticker in the middle of the cover. If the stickers were properly removed the books would be much more presentable and desirable to a vast majority of collectors. Properly removing the stickers would involve using chemicals. They would be restored. In this perverse market they would be considered to have a lower value being restored even though more people would consider buying them without the sticker than with. It just doesn't make much sense.

 

What I find amazing is a collector who, after taking care with his newsstand comics so obviously cherishing them, decides to put a sticker on the worst place on the comic. I can understand drawing tits on Lois Lane, before this.

[hhwolfman]

There is a subset of collectors in the comic community known as The Cult of Damage (I think it was founded in the1940s by Fu Manchu, but I'm not sure). For them, the comic itself is not important, it is the damage that it has accumulated that is sacrosanct.

 

Sure... adding paper, color, chemical bleaches, etc., is restoration for better or worse depending upon the situation, and has clearly altered the item itself. But the idea that a careful removal of dust, dirt, skin oils, teriyaki sauce, etc., has "harmed" or "devalued" an item (even though all of the above will continue to inflict even more long-term damage) is a bit bizarre.

 

I suspect there is not a single Old Masters painting hanging in a museum that hasn't been thoroughly cleaned... for its own benefit. I'm sure there is no Gutenberg Bible that hasn't been rebound, repaired, and deacified. I still wish books would just be given a final-assessment grade rather than a "restored grade", or an "apparent grade", or a "conserved grade" or a "qualified grade"... but I really do think in the end there is a decided difference between conservation procedures, restoration procedures, and just plain amateur taping and gluing. It is not all the "same stuff".

 

 

Very Well Said!

 

I agree with this. CGC The People have spoken. Do you know how much money you would make, with everyone re Slabbing.

[Sqeggs]

I just got in a collection of big logo golden age DC. Most are mid-grade with very nice paper but many have a sticker with the original owners name stuck right in the middle of the cover, right in the middle of the art. Purists would say "leave the sticker there.It has historical significance. It is the way it is and should remain for eternity!" Unfortunately most of those same purists wouldn't want these books because they have a big sticker in the middle of the cover. If the stickers were properly removed the books would be much more presentable and desirable to a vast majority of collectors. Properly removing the stickers would involve using chemicals. They would be restored. In this perverse market they would be considered to have a lower value being restored even though more people would consider buying them without the sticker than with. It just doesn't make much sense.

 

What I find amazing is a collector who, after taking care with his newsstand comics so obviously cherishing them, decides to put a sticker on the worst place on the comic. I can understand drawing tits on Lois Lane, before this.

 

I often wonder whether this sort of thing and the owner writing his name on the cover was the result of territorial squabbles with siblings. "Johnny, keep your dang mitts off my books!"

[goldust40]

I just got in a collection of big logo golden age DC. Most are mid-grade with very nice paper but many have a sticker with the original owners name stuck right in the middle of the cover, right in the middle of the art. Purists would say "leave the sticker there.It has historical significance. It is the way it is and should remain for eternity!" Unfortunately most of those same purists wouldn't want these books because they have a big sticker in the middle of the cover. If the stickers were properly removed the books would be much more presentable and desirable to a vast majority of collectors. Properly removing the stickers would involve using chemicals. They would be restored. In this perverse market they would be considered to have a lower value being restored even though more people would consider buying them without the sticker than with. It just doesn't make much sense.

 

What I find amazing is a collector who, after taking care with his newsstand comics so obviously cherishing them, decides to put a sticker on the worst place on the comic. I can understand drawing tits on Lois Lane, before this.

 

I often wonder whether this sort of thing and the owner writing his name on the cover was the result of territorial squabbles with siblings. "Johnny, keep your dang mitts off my books!"

 

Why couldn't it have been the back cover??

[comicnoir]

I just got in a collection of big logo golden age DC. Most are mid-grade with very nice paper but many have a sticker with the original owners name stuck right in the middle of the cover, right in the middle of the art. Purists would say "leave the sticker there.It has historical significance. It is the way it is and should remain for eternity!" Unfortunately most of those same purists wouldn't want these books because they have a big sticker in the middle of the cover. If the stickers were properly removed the books would be much more presentable and desirable to a vast majority of collectors. Properly removing the stickers would involve using chemicals. They would be restored. In this perverse market they would be considered to have a lower value being restored even though more people would consider buying them without the sticker than with. It just doesn't make much sense.

 

What I find amazing is a collector who, after taking care with his newsstand comics so obviously cherishing them, decides to put a sticker on the worst place on the comic. I can understand drawing tits on Lois Lane, before this.

 

I often wonder whether this sort of thing and the owner writing his name on the cover was the result of territorial squabbles with siblings. "Johnny, keep your dang mitts off my books!"

 

Why couldn't it have been the back cover??

 

Exactly.

[Cat-Man_America]

There is a subset of collectors in the comic community known as The Cult of Damage (I think it was founded in the1940s by Fu Manchu, but I'm not sure). For them, the comic itself is not important, it is the damage that it has accumulated that is sacrosanct.

 

Sure... adding paper, color, chemical bleaches, etc., is restoration for better or worse depending upon the situation, and has clearly altered the item itself. But the idea that a careful removal of dust, dirt, skin oils, teriyaki sauce, etc., has "harmed" or "devalued" an item (even though all of the above will continue to inflict even more long-term damage) is a bit bizarre.

 

I suspect there is not a single Old Masters painting hanging in a museum that hasn't been thoroughly cleaned... for its own benefit. I'm sure there is no Gutenberg Bible that hasn't been rebound, repaired, and deacified. I still wish books would just be given a final-assessment grade rather than a "restored grade", or an "apparent grade", or a "conserved grade" or a "qualified grade"... but I really do think in the end there is a decided difference between conservation procedures, restoration procedures, and just plain amateur taping and gluing. It is not all the "same stuff".

 

 

Very Well Said!

 

I agree with this. CGC The People have spoken. Do you know how much money you would make, with everyone re Slabbing.

 

These are my long held views, as well.

 

All folks have to do is watch Antiques Roadshow once in awhile to have a better grasp of how restoration and conservation is viewed, especially in respect to the preservation of paper ephemera. CGC is right in line with the weather vane of public opinion and the antiquities trade in my estimation, critics notwithstanding.

[Jaydogrules]

There is a subset of collectors in the comic community known as The Cult of Damage (I think it was founded in the1940s by Fu Manchu, but I'm not sure). For them, the comic itself is not important, it is the damage that it has accumulated that is sacrosanct.

 

Sure... adding paper, color, chemical bleaches, etc., is restoration for better or worse depending upon the situation, and has clearly altered the item itself. But the idea that a careful removal of dust, dirt, skin oils, teriyaki sauce, etc., has "harmed" or "devalued" an item (even though all of the above will continue to inflict even more long-term damage) is a bit bizarre.

 

I suspect there is not a single Old Masters painting hanging in a museum that hasn't been thoroughly cleaned... for its own benefit. I'm sure there is no Gutenberg Bible that hasn't been rebound, repaired, and deacified. I still wish books would just be given a final-assessment grade rather than a "restored grade", or an "apparent grade", or a "conserved grade" or a "qualified grade"... but I really do think in the end there is a decided difference between conservation procedures, restoration procedures, and just plain amateur taping and gluing. It is not all the "same stuff".

 

 

Very Well Said!

 

I agree with this. CGC The People have spoken. Do you know how much money you would make, with everyone re Slabbing.

 

These are my long held views, as well.

 

All folks have to do is watch Antiques Roadshow once in awhile to have a better grasp of how restoration and conservation is viewed, especially in respect to the preservation of paper ephemera. CGC is right in line with the weather vane of public opinion and the antiquities trade in my estimation, critics notwithstanding.

 

The problem with just giving restored books a grade that is akin to a book that has not been restored is that the two books are not playing on the same field so to speak. No one can reasonably judge what grade a book "would have been" had it not been restored, and if you attempt to grade it that way you are rendering what work was done to the book moot.

 

I do agree however that we do not need "Qualified" grades (an artificially higher grade that ignores significant defects) and "Conserved" grades (because it is substantively identical to restoration).

 

-J.

[Cat-Man_America]

There is a subset of collectors in the comic community known as The Cult of Damage (I think it was founded in the1940s by Fu Manchu, but I'm not sure). For them, the comic itself is not important, it is the damage that it has accumulated that is sacrosanct.

 

Sure... adding paper, color, chemical bleaches, etc., is restoration for better or worse depending upon the situation, and has clearly altered the item itself. But the idea that a careful removal of dust, dirt, skin oils, teriyaki sauce, etc., has "harmed" or "devalued" an item (even though all of the above will continue to inflict even more long-term damage) is a bit bizarre.

 

I suspect there is not a single Old Masters painting hanging in a museum that hasn't been thoroughly cleaned... for its own benefit. I'm sure there is no Gutenberg Bible that hasn't been rebound, repaired, and deacified. I still wish books would just be given a final-assessment grade rather than a "restored grade", or an "apparent grade", or a "conserved grade" or a "qualified grade"... but I really do think in the end there is a decided difference between conservation procedures, restoration procedures, and just plain amateur taping and gluing. It is not all the "same stuff".

 

 

Very Well Said!

 

I agree with this. CGC The People have spoken. Do you know how much money you would make, with everyone re Slabbing.

 

These are my long held views, as well.

 

All folks have to do is watch Antiques Roadshow once in awhile to have a better grasp of how restoration and conservation is viewed, especially in respect to the preservation of paper ephemera. CGC is right in line with the weather vane of public opinion and the antiquities trade in my estimation, critics notwithstanding.

 

The problem with just giving restored books a grade that is akin to a book that has not been restored is that the two books are not playing on the same field so to speak. No one can reasonably judge what grade a book "would have been" had it not been restored, and if you attempt to grade it that way you are rendering what work was done to the book moot.

 

I do agree however that we do not need "Qualified" grades (an artificially higher grade that ignores significant defects) and "Conserved" grades (because it is substantively identical to restoration).

 

-J.

 

No issues with full disclosure, but yes, there is need for a conserved grade to alleviate the PLOD/GLOD stigma that induces an irrational penalization based solely on label color. I'm persuaded that comic grading needs to be in sync with other paper collectibles in the antiquities trade. Some collectors may be adamantly opposed to this, but collecting in any field where appraisals impact value requires consistency that makes sense to both appraisers and the public at large. My

[mrmyst]