Batman 1 CGC 9.4!!!! 6 6

[woowoo]

1 minute ago, Crowzilla said:

Perfect? So the round bottom right corner with the white spot doesn't bother you or the small split at the top of the spine? It's a great book, and I think it will also bring $1 million plus when it comes to market (and I also believe superior to the 9.2).

But no, the "missing" batman ear tops don't bother me, just like the missing "Kane" didn't seem to bother the winner of the Tec 27 last month (or the winner of the 8.0 when it hit a million a decade ago).

The missing "Kane" is on most of the Detective 27's And the pages look better on the 9.0 than the 9.4 from what we can see. Both books are great and i am ok with the 9.4 being the best right now  I am just saying there is an argument to the other copy getting a 9.4 That's all 

[lou_fine]

30 minutes ago, Mmehdy said:

however I noticed it was  on the right corner of the 9.0 it was showing inside contents so, I would rather have the cover completely cover the book's interior and I think the 9.4 overall is a superior copy even if pressed I doubt it would get higher than a 9.2 or double pressed due to that defect.

Definitely hard to keep up with all of the former restoration work that CGC now allows for their Universal books. 

But didn't Borock say way back in 2005 or thereabouts that "disassembly and reassembly of a comic book in and of itself does not constitute restoration"?  So, if you combine that with their "maximization of potential", would you not have a book that just might take care of that slight misalignment issue?  

[lou_fine]

Speaking of GA upgrades from CGC 9.0 to what have you, can any of you eagle eye boardies here explain the tell tale difference that makes this copy of Crackajack Funnies 9 with the first appearance of Red Ryder only a CGC 9.0 graded copy:    

 

As compared to this exact same copy here in its later incarnation as a CGC 9.6 graded copy here?:    

Although we don't have the actual book in hand, this sometimes makes me wonder if this is simply due to changing grading standards over time or is this considered to be within CGC's acceptable grading margin of error.    

If so, then why not even a higher CGC 9.8 graded copy then, which it actually is!!!  

Edited December 27, 2020 by lou_fine

[Randall Ries]

2 hours ago, woowoo said:

I think you are wrong let Heritage do a scan of the other 9.0 and i think you get a better copy  The 9.4 is not centered great the top is cut off real close and chip missing bottom red. The other 9.0 is perfect. The white pages is the main thing and i have seen off white to white change to WHITE if i am not wrong the White copy of Action 1 that  Darren Adams had regraded was off white to white than changed to white after the resub( Not positive on this ) But i have seen the page change on other Golden age books. I say a press to get the 9.0 strait and Heritage scan and . I just think the 9.0 would give it a good race but the 9.4 is Amazing BUT not clearly the superior copy the way things change after every high grade sale just saying.

 

Hate to be that guy, but the 9.0 isn't superior to the 9.4. There is some very minor scuffy-kins along the spine that holds the 9.0 back some. Rounded lower right fc corner, a blemish at the left upper corner. The 9.4 is a bit mis-centered and an aggravation as the Bat ear tips are impacted but that just means there is more artwork at the bottom on the book. However, I wouldn't toss either one out of bed for eating graham crackers. Really lovely, beautiful, astounding forever out of my reach books. There was the one sold on HA that only had it's cover cleaned that is gorgeous as well. Purple label my Bat-Butt.

[woowoo]

2 minutes ago, Randall Ries said:

Hate to be that guy, but the 9.0 isn't superior to the 9.4. There is some very minor scuffy-kins along the spine that holds the 9.0 back some. Rounded lower right fc corner, a blemish at the left upper corner. The 9.4 is a bit mis-centered and an aggravation as the Bat ear tips are impacted but that just means there is more artwork at the bottom on the book. However, I wouldn't toss either one out of bed for eating graham crackers. Really lovely, beautiful, astounding forever out of my reach books. There was the one sold on HA that only had it's cover cleaned that is gorgeous as well. Purple label my Bat-Butt.

Ya cleaning a cover should not be Restored. You clean top $$$ cars with diff cleaning stuff to boot. 

[Randall Ries]

4 minutes ago, woowoo said:

Ya cleaning a cover should not be Restored. You clean top $$$ cars with diff cleaning stuff to boot. 

Right on. I drip grape jelly on the cover of a deluxe format DKR. Easy clean. I wipe it off. Oh no! It's restored! Give me strength.

[Chicago Boy]

2 hours ago, woowoo said:

Ya cleaning a cover should not be Restored. You clean top $$$ cars with diff cleaning stuff to boot. 

I might need to rethink my thoughts on cleaning cover.  Is it because the cleaning supplies and cars don’t change the make up of the metal wear professional cleaning on books change the make up of the paper??

[Chicago Boy]

One of you mofos need to put in another tracking bid on this book. Come on it’s safe

[woowoo]

3 minutes ago, Chicago Boy said:

One of you mofos need to put in another tracking bid on this book. Come on it’s safe

Do it you Mofo jive a-- 

[Timely]

1 hour ago, Chicago Boy said:

I might need to rethink my thoughts on cleaning cover.  Is it because the cleaning supplies and cars don’t change the make up of the metal wear professional cleaning on books change the make up of the paper??

You don’t clean a comic book to conserve it,  you clean it to make it look better... aka Restoration!

[lou_fine]

12 minutes ago, Timely said:

You don’t clean a comic book to conserve it,  you clean it to make it look better... aka Restoration!

Well, not in accordance to CGC's Restoration Grading Scale updated as of July 1, 2014:     

Conservation Repairs

Conservation repairs are performed with the intent of preserving the structural or chemical integrity of a comic book using professional techniques and materials. It excludes aesthetic repairs such as color touch and piece fill. All conserved grades must satisfy the CGC quality scale of "A" and quantity scale of "1".

• Tear seals
• Spine split seals
• Reinforcement
• Piece reattachment
• Some cover or interior cleaning (water or solvent)
• Staples cleaned or replaced
• Some leaf casting
• De-acidification

[woowoo]

40 minutes ago, Timely said:

You don’t clean a comic book to conserve it,  you clean it to make it look better... aka Restoration!

That makes No sense ? you can take a book apart dry clean press disassembly and reassembly press again and its not Restoration but if you chemical clean its Restoration ? The paper the book came from went thru all type's of hard chemical's1930' 1940's that was used back in the day to become paper that was used 

Edited December 27, 2020 by woowoo

[LDarkseid1]

6 hours ago, lou_fine said:

Speaking of GA upgrades from CGC 9.0 to what have you, can any of you eagle eye boardies here explain the tell tale difference that makes this copy of Crackajack Funnies 9 with the first appearance of Red Ryder only a CGC 9.0 graded copy:    

 

As compared to this exact same copy here in its later incarnation as a CGC 9.6 graded copy here?:    

Although we don't have the actual book in hand, this sometimes makes me wonder if this is simply due to changing grading standards over time or is this considered to be within CGC's acceptable grading margin of error.    

If so, then why not even a higher CGC 9.8 graded copy then, which it actually is!!!  

It would help to know what the grader notes were on the 9.0 back when it was still that grade. I don’t think the eye test alone is a definite way to presume this was a 9.6 even when it was a 9.0. Very possible there were additional defects (presseable/cleanable) defects back then.

[Randall Ries]

1 hour ago, woowoo said:

That makes No sense ? you can take a book apart dry clean press disassembly and reassembly press again and its not Restoration but if you chemical clean its Restoration ? The paper the book came from went thru all type's of hard chemical's1930' 1940's that was used back in the day to become paper that was used 

I'm with you. Take a book with a horrible spine roll, press/iron it back into shape THAT'S true restoration. Or pressing at ALL. Removing dirt or foreign matter that had no business being on my comic book in the first place is not restoration to me. Because seriously. If I wipe jelly off a glossy book using a damp cloth with Windex, it's - by their own definition - restored. I just cleaned the cover.

The benefit of CGC calling the play is I can buy nice books with just the cover cleaned for a fraction of the value. For that matter, that would be the only time I would crack them out. That Bat 1 on HA that only had its cover cleaned is an awesome looking book. What? Removed 75 years of soiled atmosphere? I can buy this gem for 1/3 of its implied value? YES PLEASE! I could certainly live with "cover cleaned".

[Crowzilla]

8 hours ago, lou_fine said:

Speaking of GA upgrades from CGC 9.0 to what have you, can any of you eagle eye boardies here explain the tell tale difference that makes this copy of Crackajack Funnies 9 with the first appearance of Red Ryder only a CGC 9.0 

Maybe they decided the large written "file copy" is not a defect any longer, which if so the owner of the Marvel #1 pay copy needs to resubmit that book as quickly as possible. Structurally,  that book is much nicer than any of the other HG Marvel #1s

[Chicago Boy]

21 minutes ago, Crowzilla said:

Maybe they decided the large written "file copy" is not a defect any longer, which if so the owner of the Marvel #1 pay copy needs to resubmit that book as quickly as possible. Structurally,  that book is much nicer than any of the other HG Marvel #1s

File copies are dreamy 

[woowoo]

37 minutes ago, Crowzilla said:

Maybe they decided the large written "file copy" is not a defect any longer, which if so the owner of the Marvel #1 pay copy needs to resubmit that book as quickly as possible. Structurally,  that book is much nicer than any of the other HG Marvel #1s

Do you have any more pics like this ? I just love the picture it's just like my 1982 pictures. If you do please post. The last one is random DragonCon in the early 90s

Edited December 28, 2020 by woowoo

[lou_fine]

2 hours ago, LDarkseid1 said:

8 hours ago, lou_fine said:

Speaking of GA upgrades from CGC 9.0 to what have you, can any of you eagle eye boardies here explain the tell tale difference that makes this copy of Crackajack Funnies 9 with the first appearance of Red Ryder only a CGC 9.0 graded copy:    

 

As compared to this exact same copy here in its later incarnation as a CGC 9.6 graded copy here?:    

Although we don't have the actual book in hand, this sometimes makes me wonder if this is simply due to changing grading standards over time or is this considered to be within CGC's acceptable grading margin of error.    

If so, then why not even a higher CGC 9.8 graded copy then, which it actually is!!!  

Expand  

It would help to know what the grader notes were on the 9.0 back when it was still that grade. I don’t think the eye test alone is a definite way to presume this was a 9.6 even when it was a 9.0. Very possible there were additional defects (presseable/cleanable) defects back then.

Well, if it's cleanable defects, then should we not be able to visually see them in an oversize scan like this.  Personally, I feel that we should be able to clearly see visual differences from a scan if it's enough to change the grade from a CGC 9.0 to CGC 9.6 and finally then to a CGC 9.8?  

Also doesn't appear to be due to any color breaking creases because you really can't see any no how large you magnify the 2 scans. 

So, since the 9.0 slabbed copy was graded back in 2004 before pressing even came to light, I assume it would be due to some near invisible tiny non-color breaking ticks which I still can't see even when I blow up the scans.  But probably enough for CGC to apply some punishment grading to in advance of prepping the market for what was to come the following year as per a previous post:  

On 12/26/2020 at 7:11 PM, lou_fine said:

Yes indeed, as their grading standards have devolved over time to ensure that resubs, CPR, and other forms of undisclosed manipulative practices are built in as additional streams of revenue, which I am sure was part of their business model from very early on.    

 

Sad to say, but the grading game has reached the point that if you don't play by their rules of the game, there's no point to even think of sending in your books for grading, unless you are willing to live with some punishment grades.    

 

[LDarkseid1]

37 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

Well, if it's cleanable defects, then should we not be able to visually see them in an oversize scan like this.  Personally, I feel that we should be able to clearly see visual differences from a scan if it's enough to change the grade from a CGC 9.0 to CGC 9.6 and finally then to a CGC 9.8?  

Also doesn't appear to be due to any color breaking creases because you really can't see any no how large you magnify the 2 scans. 

So, since the 9.0 slabbed copy was graded back in 2004 before pressing even came to light, I assume it would be due to some near invisible tiny non-color breaking ticks which I still can't see even when I blow up the scans.  But probably enough for CGC to apply some punishment grading to in advance of prepping the market for what was to come the following year as per a previous post:  

 

I mean presumably, but I still think there’s a chance it could be defects not easily seen by the naked eye. I’ve seen it happen before many times, missed defects on the grader notes could have shown. 

Edited December 28, 2020 by LDarkseid1

[Timely]

4 hours ago, woowoo said:

That makes No sense ? you can take a book apart dry clean press disassembly and reassembly press again and its not Restoration but if you chemical clean its Restoration ? The paper the book came from went thru all type's of hard chemical's1930' 1940's that was used back in the day to become paper that was used 

When you chemically clean a comic book you are fundamentally changing the physical composition of the paper on a microscopic level. The sizing that is put on the paper from being manufactured is stripped away. Pressing with heat and moisture do none of that.