• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

They're Still Out There!
22 22

2,906 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, VintageComics said:

You guys are assuming CCS depressed the staples. Any before pics of the book available to confirm?

Apparently, from what I saw (or thought I remembered seeing) one of the Promise books had depressed staples that CCS fixed. Or am I remembering that wrong?

You are remembering right. But right or wrong, I can’t get it out of my head that the depressed staples generally found in these books are due to pressing. Maybe the feeling will pass, but strong within this one, it is.

from @MasterChief

   (Somewhere around page 24)
 

“Dean and I happened to be discussing the collection right after a few of the teaser photos dropped in the thread. He asked my opinion as to whether or not the books had been manipulated. I mentioned that they appeared to be untouched as pressable defects were apparent here and there. I went on to say that the images looked to be pre-CGC submission, perhaps taken when the collection was examined. That thought became obvious with the reveal of the certified Catman #28. While we only have one example to go on so far for comparison purposes, many realize that the likelihood of the collection, in whole or in part, getting the treatment is a bonafide reality.

The doctoring of the Catman #28 is particularly interesting, in my opinion. The structure of that book has been altered from its original conditional state as discovered, to that of a perceived appearance post-print production book from the 40s. As mentioned, the book perked my curiosity so much so I sprung for the grader notes. There is no mention of work performed on the book in the notes. Just the typical obtuse annotations. The exception being, the "pedigree coding" (whatever that means) for the distributor mark.

CC-28_staple-compare.png

Edited by GreatCaesarsGhost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

You are remembering right. But right or wrong, I can’t get it out of my head that the depressed staples generally found in these books are due to pressing. Maybe the feeling will pass, but strong within this one, it is.

from @MasterChief

   (Somewhere around page 24)
 

“Dean and I happened to be discussing the collection right after a few of the teaser photos dropped in the thread. He asked my opinion as to whether or not the books had been manipulated. I mentioned that they appeared to be untouched as pressable defects were apparent here and there. I went on to say that the images looked to be pre-CGC submission, perhaps taken when the collection was examined. That thought became obvious with the reveal of the certified Catman #28. While we only have one example to go on so far for comparison purposes, many realize that the likelihood of the collection, in whole or in part, getting the treatment is a bonafide reality.

The doctoring of the Catman #28 is particularly interesting, in my opinion. The structure of that book has been altered from its original conditional state as discovered, to that of a perceived appearance post-print production book from the 40s. As mentioned, the book perked my curiosity so much so I sprung for the grader notes. There is no mention of work performed on the book in the notes. Just the typical obtuse annotations. The exception being, the "pedigree coding" (whatever that means) for the distributor mark.

CC-28_staple-compare.png

What grade did this one receive with the 1/2 inch staple tear ? GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)(thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, VintageComics said:

In fact, it's a common defect on some books which seem to have a weakness in the paper in that area.

I think FF #38 is one of them (as well as the corresponding Marvel books that were printed in that same month) as I've seen several of them.

There's a lot of force and speed used when manufacturing a magazine and the loose tolerances of printing presses used to make garbage, throwaway magazines are the real culprits. That's why we see so many defects on virgin books.

Not saying the Cap staples absolutely weren't damaged by pressing but I think that it's more likely it's a printing defect.

It may have happened in production on SA and newer books with their thinner cover stock. But how often have you seen an impacted staple on an otherwise high-grade 1940's book with the thicker cover stock that was in use then? I've never seen it.

Edited by jimbo_7071
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jimbo_7071 said:

It may have happened in production on SA and newer books with their thinner cover stock. But how often have you seen an impacted staple on an otherwise high-grade 1940's book with the thicker cover stock that was in use then? I've never seen it.

I swear I'm not just trying to be argumentative but we've had several OO collections from the GA around here and I have definitely seen it. I've also noticed the "defect" on Dell File copies. You're correct in assuming that pressing can magnify the issue. The reason I've noticed this is that I personally don't care for impacted staples and have passed on otherwise nice copies of books on my want list because they had impacted staples. An impacted staple is one step away from a detached staple/cover. GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)(thumbsu

Edited by jimjum12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

You are remembering right. But right or wrong, I can’t get it out of my head that the depressed staples generally found in these books are due to pressing. Maybe the feeling will pass, but strong within this one, it is.

from @MasterChief

   (Somewhere around page 24)
 

“Dean and I happened to be discussing the collection right after a few of the teaser photos dropped in the thread. He asked my opinion as to whether or not the books had been manipulated. I mentioned that they appeared to be untouched as pressable defects were apparent here and there. I went on to say that the images looked to be pre-CGC submission, perhaps taken when the collection was examined. That thought became obvious with the reveal of the certified Catman #28. While we only have one example to go on so far for comparison purposes, many realize that the likelihood of the collection, in whole or in part, getting the treatment is a bonafide reality.

The doctoring of the Catman #28 is particularly interesting, in my opinion. The structure of that book has been altered from its original conditional state as discovered, to that of a perceived appearance post-print production book from the 40s. As mentioned, the book perked my curiosity so much so I sprung for the grader notes. There is no mention of work performed on the book in the notes. Just the typical obtuse annotations. The exception being, the "pedigree coding" (whatever that means) for the distributor mark.

CC-28_staple-compare.png

So in this case pressing reversed impacted staples? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jimbo_7071 said:

It may have happened in production on SA and newer books with their thinner cover stock. But how often have you seen an impacted staple on an otherwise high-grade 1940's book with the thicker cover stock that was in use then? I've never seen it.

Very common.  Again, if you haven't seen it, you aren't looking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, VintageComics said:

You guys are assuming CCS depressed the staples.

 

5 hours ago, VintageComics said:

In fact, it's a common defect on some books which seem to have a weakness in the paper in that area.

 

2 hours ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

I can’t get it out of my head that the depressed staples generally found in these books are due to pressing. Maybe the feeling will pass, but strong within this one, it is.

 

Diaper cover in hand and it is a poster child for this debate. Included photos of a nice long held raw unpressed copy I own for giggles.   Maybe it’s a production defect?  Lol. On the bright side I’m no longer upset about the grade on my Archie 45. 

 

B59F2DC9-507F-47C6-AE5E-DCD938D9A7B5.jpeg

B93CC1A7-679D-45A4-9B9E-7D512DB87AE5.jpeg

C5D359E2-98D1-4C1E-B58C-77038678F0EF.jpeg

6ED8B8DD-5CF3-4340-8D54-75DF4FB9878D.jpeg

BDEEC79D-33E1-462B-90AC-050D3E518488.jpeg

EB4B9AA7-A966-49E7-8D07-2BB10F45EF00.jpeg

EBF58CB4-BB6F-4125-B760-1B011D30832D.jpeg

2106DD03-2EBC-4412-8300-EADA5A0E2FDB.jpeg

124BE592-FCB9-49BD-9EC8-3B9376B855C8.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ThothAmon said:

 

 

Diaper cover in hand and it is a poster child for this debate. Included photos of a nice long held raw unpressed copy I own for giggles.   Maybe it’s a production defect?  Lol. On the bright side I’m no longer upset about the grade on my Archie 45. 

 

B59F2DC9-507F-47C6-AE5E-DCD938D9A7B5.jpeg

B93CC1A7-679D-45A4-9B9E-7D512DB87AE5.jpeg

C5D359E2-98D1-4C1E-B58C-77038678F0EF.jpeg

6ED8B8DD-5CF3-4340-8D54-75DF4FB9878D.jpeg

BDEEC79D-33E1-462B-90AC-050D3E518488.jpeg

EB4B9AA7-A966-49E7-8D07-2BB10F45EF00.jpeg

EBF58CB4-BB6F-4125-B760-1B011D30832D.jpeg

2106DD03-2EBC-4412-8300-EADA5A0E2FDB.jpeg

124BE592-FCB9-49BD-9EC8-3B9376B855C8.jpeg

The fact that the depressed staple on your raw copy is so similar to the one on the Promise Collection book corroborates the notion it’s a production defect. Assuming your raw is unpressed, how else to explain the similarity? 
I may be forced to change my mind here. As a fellow owner of a Promise Collection book, I sure would prefer to believe my depressed staple is a production flaw. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, buttock said:

Very common.  Again, if you haven't seen it, you aren't looking.

I don't think you understand what I'm talking about, buttock. I'm not talking about slightly recessed staples with tiny adjacent tears. I'm talking about books like the Cap 46 where you can barely see the staple. That isn't normal.

And Thoth's copy of the Archie book shows what looks to me like post-production damage—not necessarily from pressing but possibly from careless handling of a book that had weak paper around the staple due to what initially may have been a slightly impacted staple.

Edited by jimbo_7071
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, jimbo_7071 said:

I don't think you understand what I'm talking about, buttock. I'm not talking about slightly recessed staples with tiny adjacent tears. I'm talking about books like the Cap 46 where you can barely see the staple. That isn't normal.

And Thoth's copy of the Archie book shows what looks to me like post-production damage—not necessarily from pressing but possibly from careless handling of a book that had weak paper around the staple due to what initially may have been a slightly impacted staple.

In support of this, my experience is that a staple recessed at production has actually squashed the cover so that it will deteriorate differently than the paper that wasn’t impacted. Any handling let alone pressing can exacerbate this damage. I’ve had quite a few pre-screens for pressing rejected for staple issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jimbo_7071 said:

I don't think you understand what I'm talking about, buttock. I'm not talking about slightly recessed staples with tiny adjacent tears. I'm talking about books like the Cap 46 where you can barely see the staple. That isn't normal.

And Thoth's copy of the Archie book shows what looks to me like post-production damage—not necessarily from pressing but possibly from careless handling of a book that had weak paper around the staple due to what initially may have been a slightly impacted staple.

No, I understand what you're talking about.  I've been collecting GA for over 30 years.  I've seen a LOT of comics.  From low grade beaters to perfect mint pedigree books.  I've collected long enough to see a ton of books pre-CGC and pre-pressing era.  I'm also really vocal about what I see from CCS when I can be certain they caused the damage.  But NONE of the wear, including the staple on the Cap 46, is out of the realm of what can happen with a book being handled normally.  To reiterate an important point, 9.8 is NOT the norm, but rather the exception.  We should EXPECT some wear on all comics.  To assume that any wear happened only from pressing is really not reasonable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, buttock said:

No, I understand what you're talking about.  I've been collecting GA for over 30 years.  I've seen a LOT of comics.  From low grade beaters to perfect mint pedigree books.  I've collected long enough to see a ton of books pre-CGC and pre-pressing era.  I'm also really vocal about what I see from CCS when I can be certain they caused the damage.  But NONE of the wear, including the staple on the Cap 46, is out of the realm of what can happen with a book being handled normally.  To reiterate an important point, 9.8 is NOT the norm, but rather the exception.  We should EXPECT some wear on all comics.  To assume that any wear happened only from pressing is really not reasonable.  

I've been collecting comics since 1984 myself. No one ever said that 9.8 was the norm; that isn't the issue. The issue is the staple on the Cap 46. I have seen many, many GA books myself because GA became my focus within 2 or 3 years of when I began collecting, and I have never seen a staple even approaching the staple on the Cap 46 on a book with virtually no other signs of handling wear. 

I would challenge you to show me an otherwise-NM GA book in an old-label holder with a staple that looks like that. On the off chance that you could find one, I would suspect pressing first and foremost—but I don't think you'll be able to find one, for the occasional pressing that was happening back then was not nearly as agressive as what's being done now.

Edited by jimbo_7071
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, VintageComics said:

It's nearly impossible to make an image look exactly like the book in hand.

The book in hand even changes how you see it depending on which sort of light you hold it in.

And it's far too time consuming to expect any dealer to optimize every single image when your inventory is more than just a few dozen or a couple of hundred books.

 

Roy, you have a legitimate point, to a point.  There's always room for differences of opinion where eye-of-the-beholder is concerned.  That said, it's entirely reasonable for collectors to assume a minimum standard in sales advertising and promotion.  And it's always on the end-seller to provide as accurate a representation as possible, whether it's auction house, dealer or private seller.  

Also, every book in inventory is a far cry from what we're talking about with high grade pedigree books being sold at Fort Knox prices.  That said, my rule of thumb is it's always better to avoid pumping-up the image of a book being offered for sale.

Edited by Cat-Man_America
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jimbo_7071 said:

I've been collecting comics since 1984 myself. No one ever said that 9.8 was the norm; that isn't the issue. The issue is the staple on the Cap 46. I have seen many, many GA books myself because GA became my focus within 2 or 3 years of when I began collecting, and I have never seen a staple even approaching the staple on the Cap 46 on a book with virtually no other signs of handling wear. 

I would challenge you to show me an otherwise-NM GA book in an old-label holder with a staple that looks like that. On the off chance that you could find one, I would suspect pressing first and foremost—but I don't think you'll be able to find one, for the occasional pressing that was happening back then was not nearly as agressive as what's being done now.

How about one that I cracked out of an old label holder and is a top tier pedigree?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
22 22