Avengers 4 4 4

[Albert Thurgood]

7 hours ago, PMminer said:

Just got the images back from pressing and I think he did a pretty good job under the circumstances. It was a pretty rough book. And, as it turns out, there was a detached staple. So...that's not great. But I'm still happy to have it.

Looks much better, as far as we can tell from those high altitude photos. ;-)

[PMminer]

17 minutes ago, Mr. Zipper said:

Kirby had his regular signature and then this stylized version you'd see on posters and some art, etc. And as others noted, he rarely signed on the cover. But, it's possible someone requested a cover signature and he obliged.

It looks as if it was signed quickly and with confidence, and a red marker on a cover would be an odd choice for a forger to make. The jury is still out IMO, but I think it may be good.

The pressing made a big aesthetic difference, but I'm not sure it improved the technical grade. I'd say around 2.0 before and after. With the long creases, spine wear and tape, I'm not sure it can surpass 2.0. Maybe 2.5 if you get real lucky.

I'd love to be wrong about that being his sig. I've just done cursory searches for it and none I've seen look anything like this one, but if I could find evidence that it might be real, then awesome!

I agree, I had this pressed really just to try and make it look a bit better (it was pretty rough). I'm not really expecting a grade bump.

 

[PMminer]

27 minutes ago, Albert Thurgood said:

Looks much better, as far as we can tell from those high altitude photos. ;-)

:-) Yeah, it would be nice if they were a bit tighter in and higher res, but knowing the book firsthand from before I can say it looks much better.

[Mr. Zipper]

9 minutes ago, PMminer said:

I'd love to be wrong about that being his sig. I've just done cursory searches for it and none I've seen look anything like this one, but if I could find evidence that it might be real, then awesome!

 

 

[PMminer]

Awsome! Hope lives.

[Deadpoolica]

2.0

[Galen130]

Whether real or not, 2.0/2.5 ‘Qualified’…IMO.

[eee91]

Thanks @Mr. Zipper! If that's a real sig, @PMminer, that is a RIDICULOUSLY COOL book. 

Back to grading-

You might want to ask CGC to give it a Universal label where they treat the signature as a defect and NOT as a Qualified label. Normally in that situation, that would knock a couple grade points off, so you would have to gauge whether you prefer a 8.5-9.0 green label vs a 6.5-7.0 blue label. 

But seeing as the book is already in that 1.5-2.5 range? I don't know how many points (if any) that CGC will knock off for the sig. So you might want to roll the dice and just ask them to grade it as a blue label Universal.

Hopefully others who know more than me will chime in. 

Edited June 29, 2021 by eee91

[James J Johnson]

4 hours ago, Mr. Zipper said:

What the Avengers 4 has got going for it being authentic is that if it was truly signed 50-60 years ago, when a Kirby signature wasn't of great value, it likely is authentic. What other reason could there be for basically drawing/copying a block letter Kirby sig on the cover, other than to identify the cover artist, or if it's actually real. If signed then, those are the two options. It's one or the other. 

Now other than analyzing the ink, dating it, to check chronological consistency with other block signatures from the 1960s/early 70s, I think "school's still out on this", is as close to a responsible answer that an authenticator will be able to give on this. 

Now I lean 60% atypical, a forgery, and 40% authentic, only 40% for authentic, but I can't get closer than that, there are things about this block signature I like, and things I don't. 

[divad]

1.5 green label

[Mr. Zipper]

8 hours ago, eee91 said:

Thanks @Mr. Zipper! If that's a real sig, @PMminer, that is a RIDICULOUSLY COOL book. 

Back to grading-

But seeing as the book is already in that 1.5-2.5 range? I don't know how many points (if any) that CGC will knock off for the sig. So you might want to roll the dice and just ask them to grade it as a blue label Universal.

Hopefully others who know more than me will chime in. 

I believe that writing on cover would fall in the range of acceptable defects for a book in the good range. Thus, blue 2.0-2.5

Green label should only apply to a high grade book with an outlier defect. 

[Mr. Zipper]

6 hours ago, James J Johnson said:

What the Avengers 4 has got going for it being authentic is that if it was truly signed 50-60 years ago, when a Kirby signature wasn't of great value, it likely is authentic. What other reason could there be for basically drawing/copying a block letter Kirby sig on the cover, other than to identify the cover artist, or if it's actually real. If signed then, those are the two options. It's one or the other. 

Agree. The fact of the matter is, it’s only in the last five or six years that malicious Kirby forgeries have appeared. Prior to that it was a $25 signature that was not on the radar of forgers. (Not counting the proxy/secretary signatures of course.)

I’ve been studying and collecting Kirby signatures for sometime now. “Back in the day“ forgeries were not a concern at all.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Mr. Zipper
Punctuation

[shadroch]

It is strictly my opinion, but the color of the ink seems unnatural for something that is decades old.  It sent my spidey-senses into overtime.

[Mr. Zipper]

47 minutes ago, shadroch said:

It is strictly my opinion, but the color of the ink seems unnatural for something that is decades old.  It sent my spidey-senses into overtime.

Often, if a modern marker hits 50+ year old news print, it may bleed/feather. Not conclusive, but no signs of that.

Also, a photo of the inside of the front cover may be telling. The markers from the 70s - 90s would often "halo" over time. If there is a halo-ing effect, you know the sig is at least a few decades old, which would weigh in its favor.

[PMminer]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Zipper said:

Often, if a modern marker hits 50+ year old news print, it may bleed/feather. Not conclusive, but no signs of that.

Also, a photo of the inside of the front cover may be telling. The markers from the 70s - 90s would often "halo" over time. If there is a halo-ing effect, you know the sig is at least a few decades old, which would weigh in its favor.

This won't mean much to you guys since I'm the only one that can truly know, but I will say that I did buy this book back in the early 80's just as you see it in the photos, with the red marker signature. Since then it's been bagged and boarded and kept in good conditions.

I wish I would have thought to take a pic of the interior cover, but it didn't occur to me before sending it off.

 

[shadroch]

1 hour ago, PMminer said:

This won't mean much to you guys since I'm the only one that can truly know, but I will say that I did buy this book back in the early 80's just as you see it in the photos, with the red marker signature. Since then it's been bagged and boarded and kept in good conditions.

I wish I would have thought to take a pic of the interior cover, but it didn't occur to me before sending it off.

 

Any idea what you paid for it? How did the seller grade it and did he place additional value on the signature or treat it like a defect?

 

[shadroch]

2 hours ago, Mr. Zipper said:

Often, if a modern marker hits 50+ year old news print, it may bleed/feather. Not conclusive, but no signs of that.

Also, a photo of the inside of the front cover may be telling. The markers from the 70s - 90s would often "halo" over time. If there is a halo-ing effect, you know the sig is at least a few decades old, which would weigh in its favor.

Just so everyone understands the players in the tread, I am strictly a long time collector expressing his amateur opinion while Mr. Z is a recognized expert whose opinion carries far more weight.  I'm making my guess on limited observations while Steve has studied the subject extensively. 

[PMminer]

39 minutes ago, shadroch said:

Any idea what you paid for it? How did the seller grade it and did he place additional value on the signature or treat it like a defect?

 

This was so long ago I can hardly remember, but I didn't buy it from a store or dealer. A friend and I found an ad in the paper (I believe) from a guy selling all sorts of books and original art out of his apartment. So we would stop by occasionally when we had some money to buy whatever he had on hand.

Being so young and poor I can't imagine I paid more than maybe $10 - $20 for it, but that's just a guess.

We never really talked grades. It was just a matter of, did I think something he had was cool or not, and could I afford it. And as far as I remember he treated it as the real deal and a bit of a bonus, but I think the signature meant more to me than it did to him.

 

[James J Johnson]

2 hours ago, PMminer said:

This was so long ago I can hardly remember, but I didn't buy it from a store or dealer. A friend and I found an ad in the paper (I believe) from a guy selling all sorts of books and original art out of his apartment. So we would stop by occasionally when we had some money to buy whatever he had on hand.

Being so young and poor I can't imagine I paid more than maybe $10 - $20 for it, but that's just a guess.

We never really talked grades. It was just a matter of, did I think something he had was cool or not, and could I afford it. And as far as I remember he treated it as the real deal and a bit of a bonus, but I think the signature meant more to me than it did to him.

 

Under these circumstances of acquisition, the signature may very well be good, although authentication by a responsible major professional or company might be daunting. i've extensively studied Kirby's and about a dozen others who I feel I've attained expert level on and I can't get you closer than 60/40. Mr. Z, one of the top practitioners in the auto authentication field can't get you closer than about 50/50. 

Many experts in the field still find it difficult to differentiate between Jack Kirby and Roz Kirby's secretarial TTM Jack Kirby signature, -script, block lettered, or a combination of both. 

Either way, it's an AV 4 and yours is a better collection by its ownership, Kirby's track or otherwise. 

[divad]

7 hours ago, Mr. Zipper said:

I believe that writing on cover would fall in the range of acceptable defects for a book in the good range. Thus, blue 2.0-2.5

Green label should only apply to a high grade book with an outlier defect. 

I suppose that's the new way they may handle it, but I've seen 3.0 green labels (at some point in time) if I'm not mistaken. There is a great thread about this in the grading and restoration forum.