Cap #1 CGC 8.0 Manufacturing Error on CC (Feb auction) 1 1

[Silver Surfer]

A good result but the book was over exposed to the market for years so that didn't help. 

[G.A.tor]

52 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

 

When you go out for a sun tan, do you not turn over to ensure that you are evenly tanned on both sides, or do you just do the front side only?   

good point...I wonder how the owner was able to flip the book over so evenly, to equally fade both sides (of just the red, mind you) 

 

[NP_Gresham]

A fairly common technique back in the day.

Suspended by clothes pins with both sides exposed to the light.

Of course all the dealer types line up here to protect their BS, but for realz this is a bad sun fade. Continue to peddle your damaged books as you please but not everyone is so gullible to buy this.

 

[G.A.tor]

1 hour ago, NP_Gresham said:

A fairly common technique back in the day.

Suspended by clothes pins with both sides exposed to the light.

Of course all the dealer types line up here to protect their BS, but for realz this is a bad sun fade. Continue to peddle your damaged books as you please but not everyone is so gullible to buy this.

 

You go right on believing sun magically penetrated roofs and walls and faded the back as well as the front 

no dealer on these boards peddled that book, but you choose to ignore that fact too

 And for the record I personally wouldn't buy or sell a copy that looked like this , regardless of the reason

Edited March 23, 2017 by G.A.tor

[NP_Gresham]

3 minutes ago, G.A.tor said:

You go right on believing sun magically penetrated roofs and walls and faded the back as well as the front 

no dealer on these boards peddled that book, but you choose to ignore that fact too

I am not selling anything. No dog in this fight.

It is a sun fade.

[Jaydogrules]

Well regardless of what caused it to look like that, it sold for $215k+ less than the normal looking 8.0 copy sold for a year ago.  

So it's clear that "the market" does not care for the looks of the book. 

And whether or not it's a "defect" or a sun fade or a combo of both, I don't think that book should have that grade in that holder.  

-J.

[burntboy]

1 hour ago, NP_Gresham said:

I am not selling anything. No dog in this fight.

It is a sun fade.

A recognized authority on Comics has stated that this is a book printed without red inks.  (Read the CGC Label).   Just who are you to dispute this?   Oh the Arrogance...

[Action252Kid]

1 hour ago, NP_Gresham said:

I am not selling anything. No dog in this fight.

It is a sun fade.

Best proof that it's not a sun fade is the back cover.  The "Beautiful Desk" and other red text is flat out missing.  Not sure if anyone else said this earlier in the thread, but it's more obvious when you see the two side by side.

[NP_Gresham]

Just now, burntboy said:

A recognized authority on Comics has stated that this is a book printed without red inks.  (Read the CGC Label).   Just who are you to dispute this?   Oh the Arrogance...

Where is 'sun fade' ever noted on a label?

Not aware of those notes.

 

[NP_Gresham]

7 minutes ago, burntboy said:

A recognized authority on Comics has stated that this is a book printed without red inks.  (Read the CGC Label).   Just who are you to dispute this?   Oh the Arrogance...

And this same authority claims to have no way of determining whether a book was under a stack of books or pressed.

And yet there are boardies who can clearly detect a pressed book.

Oh the arrogance.

[G.A.tor]

31 minutes ago, Action252Kid said:

Best proof that it's not a sun fade is the back cover.  The "Beautiful Desk" and other red text is flat out missing.  Not sure if anyone else said this earlier in the thread, but it's more obvious when you see the two side by side.

I mentioned this but the "expert" said it was still faded

[streyouttacomics]

I have seen a low grade copy with the exact same color defect and label, so there are probably some more error copies out there as well.

[NP_Gresham]

1 hour ago, G.A.tor said:

I mentioned this but the "expert" said it was still faded

And that is the kind of thinking that made Ewert get away with what he did.

A touch of skepticism is always a good idea,  unless one is a dealer pumping wares.

 

 

 

[lou_fine]

1 hour ago, G.A.tor said:

2 hours ago, Action252Kid said:

Best proof that it's not a sun fade is the back cover.  The "Beautiful Desk" and other red text is flat out missing.  Not sure if anyone else said this earlier in the thread, but it's more obvious when you see the two side by side.

I mentioned this but the "expert" said it was still faded

+1

The missing red letters are absolute proof beyond a shadow of doubt that this missing color defect is NOT due to sun fade. 

Edited March 23, 2017 by lou_fine

[Aasparky1000]

24 minutes ago, NP_Gresham said:

And that is the kind of thinking that made Ewert get away with what he did.

A touch of skepticism is always a good idea,  unless one is a dealer pumping wares.

 

 

 

Man there has been no pumping of this book by anyone on this thread, in fact, most said they wouldn't even buy this book, you are barking up the wrong tree

[Dark Knight]

Yep the back cover differences with and without the red ink is like night and day (referring to the "beautiful desk" and "act now" texts).  Clearly the CC book did not have the red ink.  Too obvious...

[Timely]

This book is not sun faded at all.

[Gotham Kid]

51 minutes ago, Timely said:

This book is not sun faded at all.

Never mind the opinions of the majority everyone. Only 1 matters.

[Jaydogrules]

1 hour ago, Gotham Kid said:

Never mind the opinions of the majority everyone. Only 1 matters.

Hey Peter there is something else weird going on with the book though because it some places you can see the red, and it does just look really faded or washed out, and in other places it is indeed seemingly completely absent.  And look at the difference between the vibrancy of the blues between the two copies. The normal copy just looks brighter.  There probably is some fade on the other one there, in addition to some kind of printing defect, or the printing defect is more severe than just some missing red ink.  

-J.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Jaydogrules

[bluechip]

20 hours ago, NP_Gresham said:

I am not selling anything. No dog in this fight.

It is a sun fade.

This conversation struck me as so bizarre that you left me wondering why you are so adamant if you don't have a "dog in this fight." So I'd guess that the "dog" you have in this fight is not the individual book(s) themselves but with whatever point you are trying to make, and that's what isn't clear.   I haven't read all the posts but it seems like you want to say that either a) you think the book shouldn't have had such a high grade number and/or b) you're saying that the manner in which the red ink went missing should be a bigger factor in its value than the fact that the red ink is missing.      

I could probably agree with (a) although (b) makes much less sense to me.  Of course, I wouldn't pay extra for a "printing error" so I wouldn't care what caused the lack-of-red.   I suppose if the grade number reflected the defect itself, regardless of how it happened, maybe there'd be less arguing about what it's worth.    But if the buyer is the sort of person who pays based on the number, then I think it's on them to notice if the grade is high and the book has no red ink on it.  

The most legitimate complaint I can see is from the people who have an 8.0 copy of the same book and see the average GPA drop because of a book that got the same label despite lesser "eye appeal."  But that is a problem which exists across the board in all grades and is so subjective that it's well nigh unavoidable.

Edited March 23, 2017 by bluechip