Suspicious Double-Stapling on this Amazing Spider-Man #194 1 1

[Skwerl]

I've been meaning to post this here for awhile. I acquired this copy of Amazing Spider-Man #194 awhile back at a fair price for its 7.0-ish grade, but I've always been a little suspicious of the staple situation. The cover doesn't seem like an obvious reprint or anything; its condition is in line with the rest of the book and it "feels" real, but it doesn't line up with the rest of the book perfectly, and there are two sets of staples; Only two of the four go through the cover. My fear is that the cover was re-stapled, or worse, is counterfeited. Comparing it to other books from the same era (I have an ASM #192 here among some others), the staples that don't go through the cover (which would be the original staples, if my fear is true) are where staples usually are more or less, with the additional staples (that do go through the cover) either higher or lower. Of course I don't want to believe I was deceived, and I've seen all kinds of weird manufacturing errors (from zero staples to 5), but my gut is telling me that this one's fishy. What do you guys think? What should I do?

Edited February 10, 2021 by Kevin Cogill

[10centcomics]

Interesting book! Well we can say with certainty that the cover was re-attached--the question is if it was a production-related error/fix of some sort or an after-market modification. If the cover were counterfeit, it seems more likely the counterfeiter would try to marry the cover using the original two staples? This makes me think it is more likely a bizarre production issue. I can't really tell from the photos but if the extra staples are identical it would help the production error theory.

[Skwerl]

21 minutes ago, 10centcomics said:

Interesting book! Well we can say with certainty that the cover was re-attached--the question is if it was a production-related error/fix of some sort or an after-market modification. If the cover were counterfeit, it seems more likely the counterfeiter would try to marry the cover using the original two staples? This makes me think it is more likely a bizarre production issue. I can't really tell from the photos but if the extra staples are identical it would help the production error theory.

Thanks for the insight! Yeah, hard to tell. The staples don't obviously look dissimilar but hard to tell. The fact that there aren't extra staple holes in the cover tells me that either the cover was counterfeit and then stapled on, or it was attached during production. But I agree that if someone counterfeited the cover, they would either use the original two staples, or at least try and use the same holes to cover their tracks. Especially if they had a machine that could staple properly (these staples clearly aren't from a standad office stapler or anything). And especially given the quality of the cover if it is a really impressive fake. But who knows. How much confidence should I have in CGC to verify a) the authenticity of the cover, b) the authenticity of the staples, and thus c) whether this is an inconsequential manufacturing issue or something that's going to clobber the value; restoration or worse?

Also... If it is just a manufacturing issue, would that affect the grade?

I'm not sure if I care too much about getting it slabbed, but I'd love to get to the bottom of it so I can either rest easy or start hunting for a legit copy.

Edited February 11, 2021 by Skwerl

[William-James88]

4 minutes ago, Skwerl said:

Thanks for the insight! Yeah, hard to tell. The staples don't obviously look dissimilar but hard to tell. The fact that there aren't extra staple holes in the cover tells me that either the cover was counterfeit and then stapled on, or it was attached during production. But I agree that if someone counterfeited the cover, they would either use the original two staples, or at least try and use the same holes to cover their tracks. Especially if they had a machine that could staple properly (these staples clearly aren't from a standad office stapler or anything). And especially given the quality of the cover if it is a really impressive fake. But who knows. How much confidence should I have in CGC to verify a) the authenticity of the cover, b) the authenticity of the staples, and thus c) whether this is an inconsequential manufacturing issue or something that's going to clobber the value; restoration or worse?

Also... If it is just a manufacturing issue, would that affect the grade?

I'm not sure if I care too much about getting it slabbed, but I'd love to get to the bottom of it so I can either rest easy or start hunting for a legit copy.

The cover could be real but it being reattached means it was messed with regardless and it would probably get a green label. I'd start hunting for a legit copy.

[10centcomics]

If it's a production error, it should not hurt the grade. 

If it's a counterfeit cover, obviously it will grade 0.5 as a coverless copy and take a massive value hit.

If it's a married cover, it will get hit with a qualified green label and take a very significant value hit (50% or more)

I would imagine CGC would be able to help you get to the bottom of this as they have experience looking at staples and determining if pages/covers are married. But you'll have to decide if that investigation/peace of mind is worth the cost. I poked around older threads and it seems there have been other cases (but with Silver Age books) with the same extra staples production issue you may have here.

 

[boatfund]

Production related:  there are other threads/posts about similar books.  Printer had to meet a certain production number and some covers were hand stapled to issues that somehow didn't get a cover during the run. IIRC. 

It is a legit book, I have had a Daredevil and a Wolverine Mini-series books with similar staples/covers.

[boatfund]

DiceX's thorough explanation link

 

[boatfund]

2 minutes ago, boatfund said:

DiceX's thorough explanation link

 

it's on page 19, I thought I had the page right to begin with

[The Lions Den]

CGC usually handles stapling issues by Qualifying the book. They'll almost always put a note on the label that describes the number of extra staples and whether the extra staples are deemed to be from the manufacturing process (or not). The thing is, CGC probably isn't going to care about who married the cover or where it happened---it's still likely going to receive a green label. Another issue seems to be that they didn't do a very good job of lining the cover up with the interior, which appears to have produced a pretty serious overhang. I wouldn't recommend that you slab this book because the overhang may incur damage at some point. I'd probably keep it as a cool oddity or sell it raw and use the proceeds to purchase more comics. 

I hope this helps...interesting book!  

Edited February 14, 2021 by The Lions Den

[Skwerl]

28 minutes ago, boatfund said:

it's on page 19, I thought I had the page right to begin with

Oh, I see now! Thanks! Very reassuring!

[theCapraAegagrus]

The book could've accidentally been stapled without the cover, then cover stapled, leading to 2 sets (from the MFG). Or, the OG cover was garbage, and a better one was married. I'm leaning more towards the former.

[Dick Pontoon]

I'm with Lion's Den and boatfund, looks production related.

A dealer friend once had an X-Men #3 with the same type of stapling. I had it in hand and it looked legit. He subbed it and it came back in a blue label.

[The Lions Den]

5 hours ago, Pontoon said:

I'm with Lion's Den and boatfund, looks production related.

A dealer friend once had an X-Men #3 with the same type of stapling. I had it in hand and it looked legit. He subbed it and it came back in a blue label.

I'm honored to be mentioned in one of your posts...  

[buttock]

The way the tines are bent differently on the staples holding the cover on (not typical of most production staples), the fact that the original set of staples are oxidizing while the others aren't, and the fact that the cover is misaligned all tell me this isn't production-related.  

[theCapraAegagrus]

3 hours ago, buttock said:

The way the tines are bent differently on the staples holding the cover on (not typical of most production staples), the fact that the original set of staples are oxidizing while the others aren't, and the fact that the cover is misaligned all tell me this isn't production-related.  

Your analysis has swayed my opinion. Great observation!

[buttock]

4 hours ago, Angel of Death said:

Your analysis has swayed my opinion. Great observation!

 monarch to the kingdom of the dead.  

[Skwerl]

9 hours ago, buttock said:

The way the tines are bent differently on the staples holding the cover on (not typical of most production staples), the fact that the original set of staples are oxidizing while the others aren't, and the fact that the cover is misaligned all tell me this isn't production-related.  

You know, I looked for those sorts of discrepancies with the staples, but holding the book in my hands and looking at the staples from all angles, the tines don't really seem like they're bent differently. And the oxidization isn't really much different. At least not in a way that supports either theory strongly; Sure, on the bottom set, the staple that goes through the cover looks a little suspect, but then on the top set, the staple that doesn't go through the cover is the one that looks slightly less oxidized, with slightly "looser" tines. Maybe I can take some more photos.

I might send this to get graded but not slabbed.

[buttock]

2 minutes ago, Skwerl said:

You know, I looked for those sorts of discrepancies with the staples, but holding the book in my hands and looking at the staples from all angles, the tines don't really seem like they're bent differently. And the oxidization isn't really much different. At least not in a way that supports either theory strongly; Sure, on the bottom set, the staple that goes through the cover looks a little suspect, but then on the top set, the staple that doesn't go through the cover is the one that looks slightly less oxidized, with slightly "looser" tines. Maybe I can take some more photos.

I might send this to get graded but not slabbed.

Yeah, it's not 100%.  And really what it boils down to what CGC says, and who can predict that?  But as far as what you care about... probably not worth getting it graded.  

[ThothAmon]

On 2/10/2021 at 8:47 PM, 10centcomics said:

t's a married cover

That’s my guess. 

[The Lions Den]

3 hours ago, buttock said:

Yeah, it's not 100%.  And really what it boils down to what CGC says, and who can predict that?  But as far as what you care about... probably not worth getting it graded.  

CGC would likely hit it for a married cover either way, which means it would end up Qualified with a note about the extra set of staples no matter how or when it was accomplished...