ComicLink's next Featured Auction Has Started Posting Books 17 17

[Timely]

There’s a nice copy of Sunny #11 ending in 3 days!

[rjpb]

10 hours ago, szav said:

To be fair it’s technically ‘slightly brittle’ but people keep saying ‘brittle.’

Now I’ll be the first to say it’s either brittle or it’s not, saying slightly brittle seems like saying slightly dead (cue the princess bride memes).

According to what Ive been told SB pages typically indicate splitting at the spine/separation from the cover and isn’t the same as pieces flaking off at the slightest touch. I’m not sure if SB means brittle, or weak at the spine only, and ok otherwise or what exactly though.

It often means localized brittleness, I've had SB books that have page corners with tears or chips, but the pages are otherwise off-white and supple but for the corner. Conversely I've seen other books that appear to have issues with corner chips on tanning pages that get labeled cream pages. CGC also doesn't seem to note brittle covers, just pages. We've all seen books with chips out of the cover that are clearly due to brittle stock and not tears or separation along a fold.

[LDarkseid1]

15 minutes ago, rjpb said:

It often means localized brittleness, I've had SB books that have page corners with tears or chips, but the pages are otherwise off-white and supple but for the corner. Conversely I've seen other books that appear to have issues with corner chips on tanning pages that get labeled cream pages. CGC also doesn't seem to note brittle covers, just pages. We've all seen books with chips out of the cover that are clearly due to brittle stock and not tears or separation along a fold.

Can you show an example of a brittle cover? I’d like to see that for curiosity sake. Also I assume stuff like Marvel Chipping on an AF15 for example isn’t correlated to what your saying?

[rjpb]

2 hours ago, LDarkseid1 said:

Can you show an example of a brittle cover? I’d like to see that for curiosity sake. Also I assume stuff like Marvel Chipping on an AF15 for example isn’t correlated to what your saying?

Here is an extreme example where the right edge has clearly had pieces broken off rather than torn off. I would argue that Marvel chipping is due to brittleness. Some Marvels may be more subject to it due to small tears caused in the cutting process, and in some cases the "chipping" may be due to those tears continuing resulting in pieces coming off, but in most cases the edges of books with chipping have pieces broken off. The term "chipping" implies a breaking off rather than tearing off of a piece. You can't just break pieces off paper that is supple. I don't recall ever seeing Marvel chipping back in the 70s, the books had to age long enough that the cover stock lost pliability, and the edge was able to chip off. Loss of pliability is what brittleness is, one can argue about where in the process of paper aging loss of suppleness becomes brittleness, but generally if you risk breaking a piece off a page or cover by handling it, it would classify as brittle by just about anyone's definition. If it tears easily, it would have to at least slightly brittle. 

[ThothAmon]

Went for three books yesterday. Detective 2, 8 and 140. O fer. Nice prices for the most part (definitely no “deals”). 

[Pantodude]

 

On 5/25/2021 at 2:07 AM, rjpb said:

I don't recall ever seeing Marvel chipping back in the 70s, the books had to age long enough that the cover stock lost pliability,

No, no.  You don't see Marvel chipping with Bronze Age or new books because it a well-documented, printing-related phenomenon that only happened with early SA Marvel issues (hence the name "Marvel" chipping) until they figured it out and improved the production process.   Marvel chipping has nothing to do with aging/brittleness or otherwise deterioration of a book after the printing process.  In other words, a book can have MC despite being sealed in an air-tight vault since day one off the printing press and having the supplest of pages because it was made that way.  It is part of the quirky history of Marvel's SA books, and some collectors find it endearing (like date or store stamps found only on older books) or consider it like a variation of sorts of the book.  Anyway, and importantly, this is why CGC does not really downgrade for marvel chipping except with higher than mid-grade books, like at least 8.0.  

Edited May 26, 2021 by Pantodude

[mcribar]

1 hour ago, Pantodude said:

 

No, no.  You don't see Marvel chipping with Bronze Age or new books because it a well-documented, printing-related phenomenon that only happened with early SA Marvel issues (hence the name "Marvel" chipping) until they figured it out and improved the production process.   Marvel chipping has nothing to do with aging/brittleness or otherwise deterioration of a book after the printing process.  In other words, a book can have MC despite being sealed in an air-tight vault since day one off the printing press and having the supplest of pages because it was made that way.  It is part of the quirky history of Marvel's SA books, and some collectors find it endearing (like date or store stamps found only on older books) or consider it like a variation of sorts of the book.  Anyway, and importantly, this is why CGC does not really downgrade for marvel chipping except with higher than mid-grade books, like at least 8.0.  

Yes.  I remember reading a detailed article regarding Marvel Chipping in the early 90s.  If I recall it was a problem with one of the blades in the main printing facility.  It was not properly maintained and was allowed to go dull very often which caused the chipping.  I think this went on for a couple years until they improved their quality control and made sure the blade was sharpened on regular intervals.   That's what the story said anyway.  Makes sense to me since in the 60s nobody cared about the integrity of a comic book, least of all the printer.

[rjpb]

2 hours ago, Pantodude said:

 

No, no.  You don't see Marvel chipping with Bronze Age or new books because it a well-documented, printing-related phenomenon that only happened with early SA Marvel issues (hence the name "Marvel" chipping) until they figured it out and improved the production process.   Marvel chipping has nothing to do with aging/brittleness or otherwise deterioration of a book after the printing process.  In other words, a book can have MC despite being sealed in an air-tight vault since day one off the printing press and having the supplest of pages because it was made that way.  It is part of the quirky history of Marvel's SA books, and some collectors find it endearing (like date or store stamps found only on older books) or consider it like a variation of sorts of the book.  Anyway, and importantly, this is why CGC does not really downgrade for marvel chipping except with higher than mid-grade books, like at least 8.0.  

I meant that in the 1970s you didn't see Marvel chipping on early 60s Marvels. The problem was aggravated by the printing process, but the books didn't start chipping along the edge until the paper stock on the cover had aged to the point where the edge was no longer supple. It's a myth that these books came off the printing press chipped. As I said, small tears from the cutting process along the edge can alone account for some loss, as the tears continue through handling, but the loss of suppleness at the edge is what causes a lot of pieces to break off.

While there is often a correlation between brittleness on the interior and the cover of old books, they don't always occur in tandem. There are books with brittle pages and fairly supple covers, and the opposite. Quality of cover stock is likely a factor in the Marvel chipping process, even if the quality defect isn't evident until the paper ages. Atlas books sometimes show this chipping, and appear more prone to interior tanning of the cover stock than some other publishers of the era, so this was a problem with the publisher's output that predates the return of the Marvel brand, and you sometimes see chipped edges from other publishers, though less frequently.

Paper ages gradually, though not evenly, and even those books from 50 or 60 years ago that seem remarkably supple are not as supple as a new comic. Books don't just shift from supple to brittle, the fibers become ever so more fragile over time, and at the point they break from handling we tend to call them brittle, but long before that we are aware that handling can potentially damage the paper in ways not so easily done with a brand new comic.

Brittle is an ugly word in paper collectibles, and I understand the desire to avoid using it, I do the same, but let's be honest, many of the flaws found in older books like edge chipping and spine splitting are frequently the result of not just mishandling, but fragility of of paper stock due to age. We will avoid using the dreaded b word as long as possible, particularly with cover stock, but everything is heading that direction.

 

 

[innocuous]

I was tempted by this one last night. But, I'm trying REAL hard to stay focused on something else. 

https://www.comiclink.com/Auctions/item.asp?back=%2FComicTrack%2FAuctions%2Fbids.asp&id=1480338

[Ian Winner]

On 5/22/2021 at 2:20 PM, innocuous said:

 seems like a market need

I agree that CL needs a lot of things that are pretty standard everywhere else. I watched an auction close on a Sensation 68 that I thought I was the winning bidder on tonight. Just to find out I was outbid but there was no indicator on the site even though I was refreshing. I would probably would have placed a last second bid of at least $200 dollars higher than what the final price was if I knew I had been outbid. So essentially the seller of this book missed out on $200 bucks putting this on CL. The final price was about $300-500 dollars below the going rate.      

[lou_fine]

1 hour ago, Ian Winner said:

I agree that CL needs a lot of things that are pretty standard everywhere else. I watched an auction close on a Sensation 68 that I thought I was the winning bidder on tonight. Just to find out I was outbid but there was no indicator on the site even though I was refreshing. I would probably would have placed a last second bid of at least $200 dollars higher than what the final price was if I knew I had been outbid. So essentially the seller of this book missed out on $200 bucks putting this on CL. The final price was about $300-500 dollars below the going rate.      

That's because the auction format for CL is set up similar to eBay auctions whereby lots can be won through last second computerized sniping bids.  

As such, if bidders are throwing in last second Hail Mary stratospheric bids in hopes of winning the lot because they cannot see what the other bidder is bidding at that point, you would also have to place a substantially higher blind bid if you really wanted to win the lot.  Exact reason why I tend to avoid CL auctions because it is designed on the premise hoping that these last second bidders will come in, whereas I much preferred the CC 3-minute extended bidding format whereby I know exactly what the next bid increment is and exactly what I would have to bid if I wanted to win the auction.  

 

[buttock]

10 hours ago, Ian Winner said:

I agree that CL needs a lot of things that are pretty standard everywhere else. I watched an auction close on a Sensation 68 that I thought I was the winning bidder on tonight. Just to find out I was outbid but there was no indicator on the site even though I was refreshing. I would probably would have placed a last second bid of at least $200 dollars higher than what the final price was if I knew I had been outbid. So essentially the seller of this book missed out on $200 bucks putting this on CL. The final price was about $300-500 dollars below the going rate.      

You need to change your name now. 

[Ian Winner]

1 hour ago, buttock said:

You need to change your name now. 

 The name does come with a lot of expectations.....

[Ian Winner]

9 hours ago, lou_fine said:

That's because the auction format for CL is set up similar to eBay auctions whereby lots can be won through last second computerized sniping bids.  

As such, if bidders are throwing in last second Hail Mary stratospheric bids in hopes of winning the lot because they cannot see what the other bidder is bidding at that point, you would also have to place a substantially higher blind bid if you really wanted to win the lot.  Exact reason why I tend to avoid CL auctions because it is designed on the premise hoping that these last second bidders will come in, whereas I much preferred the CC 3-minute extended bidding format whereby I know exactly what the next bid increment is and exactly what I would have to bid if I wanted to win the auction.  

 

It's such an outdated format. I guess I need to dust off my 2001 era sniping tool if I decide to go after any more auctions on CL. I am big fan of HA's format (though not their endless fees). CC's 3 minute format gives me too much time to question my bid!  

[LDarkseid1]

9 minutes ago, Ian Winner said:

It's such an outdated format. I guess I need to dust off my 2001 era sniping tool if I decide to go after any more auctions on CL. I am big fan of HA's format (though not their endless fees). CC's 3 minute format gives me too much time to question my bid!  

From a buyer's perspective, you definitely have to be on your top game and make sure you're following the end closely, be prepared to throw out a slightly higher top bid than maybe expected. So I can understand where you're coming from there. Never fun to get sniped at the end, but it is what is lol.

Yet, from a seller's perspective, I'm not sure C-Link's style of auction has affected sales much. I see impressive results time and again, just as I see weak results occasionally. No different than with Heritage or Comicconnect though. I don't think there's any data to point to the other two auction houses that shows there style of auction helps comics sell for more than C-Link.

[lou_fine]

Looks like this HTF and in-demand early Centaur is still going great guns and shooting on all cylinders, as evident by this week's CL auction:  

https://www.comiclink.com/auctions/item.asp?back=%2FAUCTIONS%2FALLSUB.ASP%3FFocused%3D1%26id%3D1052%26x%3D57%26y%3D17%26pg%3D23%23Item_1467764&id=1467764&itemType=0

 

Sold for what is most likely a record $2,100 amount for a CGC 2.0 graded condition copy or at over 7.5X Overstreet condition guide value.  

[Ian Winner]

1 minute ago, LDarkseid1 said:

From a buyer's perspective, you definitely have to be on your top game and make sure you're following the end closely, be prepared to throw out a slightly higher top bid than maybe expected. So I can understand where you're coming from there. Never fun to get sniped at the end, but it is what is lol.

Yet, from a seller's perspective, I'm not sure C-Link's style of auction has affected sales much. I see impressive results time and again, just as I see weak results occasionally. No different than with Heritage or Comicconnect though. I don't think there's any data to point to the other two auction houses that shows there style of auction helps comics sell for more than C-Link.

Yeah without CL numbers in GPA it is hard to really do a comparison between the different auction houses(though that would be a fantastic study). Ultimately CL doesn't provide a good Customer Experience which most studies show leads to decreased revenue over time. We seen this with how many big collections are going to HA and CC. If I saw a similar book on CL and on CC, I would be more inclined to aggressively pursue the book on CC or if it was on the exchange purchase it there.   

[LDarkseid1]

1 hour ago, Ian Winner said:

Yeah without CL numbers in GPA it is hard to really do a comparison between the different auction houses(though that would be a fantastic study). Ultimately CL doesn't provide a good Customer Experience which most studies show leads to decreased revenue over time. We seen this with how many big collections are going to HA and CC. If I saw a similar book on CL and on CC, I would be more inclined to aggressively pursue the book on CC or if it was on the exchange purchase it there.   

Oh that's interesting about the customer experience. I'm curious what bad experiences you've had?

I've been selling on there for years. Always got my checks on time, my c-link advisor has always replied to me in a timely manner when I have questions, I've gotten quick advances if I needed them. And as far as buying goes, payment has always been an easy process and always got the books sent quickly. I've only used CC twice for selling, but have bought from them many times. Can't say anything bad about them, except it took longer than expected one time to get payment. Overall CC has always been solid though. Heritage I just can't wrap my head around the fees. So not looking to sell there ever. I think I've bought one or two things from them.

Edited May 27, 2021 by LDarkseid1

[ThothAmon]

6 minutes ago, LDarkseid1 said:

Oh that's interesting about the customer experience. I'm curious what bad experiences you've had?

I've been selling on there for years. Always got my checks on time, my c-link advisor has always replied to me in a timely manner when I have questions, I've gotten quick advances if I needed them. And as far as buying goes, payment has always been an easy process and always got the books sent quickly. I've only used CC twice for selling, but have bought from them many times. Can't say anything bad about them, except it took longer than expected one time to get payment. Overall CC has always been solid though. Heritage I just can't wrap my head around the fees. So not looking to sell there ever. I think I've bought one or two things from them.

I hope he’s only referring to the website and auction style?  CL has nothing but excellent customer service from my perspective. Might even be better for sellers as the fear of missing out leads to plenty of Hail Marys. Certainly this auction has plenty of new GPA highs. 

[LDarkseid1]

Seems pretty damn solid for a 1.0! Especially when considering it’s also missing a coupon.