Tatooz and ASM 238, why is it different? 4 4

[Ixthinon]

This is in regards with the Tatooz inclusion was for some of the Marvel titles released in March 1983, which included ASM 238. I have looked into titles that could have the tatooz and noticed that CGC awards them a blue label with or without the Tatooz. Like Say UXM 167 some of these books have the Tatooz, while some do not - both blue label. Why is ASM 238 different in this regard to whether it gets a blue or green label? Some of the ASM 238's surely did not even come with them in the first place, just as the other Marvel issues from March 1983.  

[Lightning55]

Apparently ASM 238 also has its quirky situations.  This listing is a Newsstand issue, has the blurb on the front promoting the tattooz, so should have the tattooz to be complete. But it has a blue label, and recently, in 2022 Cert lookup. Should be a Qualified Green or Incomplete 0.5 Blue.

Just another error at grading or QC?

[Lightning55]

Or how about THIS ONE? Has a blue label, but says "Qualified" over the grade number. What???? No consistency at all in how these are categorized or presented.

[AbsoluteCarnage]

[AbsoluteCarnage]

On 10/22/2023 at 8:24 PM, Lightning55 said:

Or how about THIS ONE? Has a blue label, but says "Qualified" over the grade number. What???? No consistency at all in how these are categorized or presented.

LOL that qualified blue label's a beauty ;-)

[Lightning55]

On 10/22/2023 at 9:03 PM, AbsoluteCarnage said:

That 18 year old thread has some information, but outdated, in that price guides are back to differentiating prices for issues missing the tattooz insert, or the tattooz missing from the insert.

I'm still trying to figure out how CGC can tell if an insert has been married into a different book than where it originated (e.g. pulled from FF 252 and inserted into ASM 238).  Any theories???

Is there some type of identifier on the inserts that tip off where it was originally used?  Or do they look for staple holes that don't match up perfectly, like extra staple holes? The wrong positioning on the page, doesn't line up exactly to the top of the page or some other marker?  Different tattooz assigned to each comic title, so they can tell it has the wrong one?  Can they even see the tattooz in the insert? Seems like it would be difficult to tell if original or replacement. Maybe @The Lions Den knows from his past experiences.

I also wonder if there are any instances where a legit 238 gets a qualified label for a married insert because it looks a bit off?  You send in what you know is a legit 238, CGC grader gives it the slant eye, calls it married, gets encapsulated, game over. 

You can't even recheck it yourself when you get it back, without cracking it out and wasting your grading money.  Probably crack it anyway and take your chances on try #2, hoping to miss that same grader.

Edited October 23, 2023 by Lightning55

[AbsoluteCarnage]

On 10/22/2023 at 9:32 PM, Lightning55 said:

That 18 year old thread has some information, but outdated, in that price guides are back to differentiating prices for issues missing the tattooz insert, or the tattooz missing from the insert.

I'm still trying to figure out how CGC can tell if an insert has been married into a different book than where it originated (e.g. pulled from FF 252 and inserted into ASM 238).  Any theories???

Is there some type of identifier on the inserts that tip off where it was originally used?  Or do they look for staple holes that don't match up perfectly, like extra staple holes? The wrong positioning on the page, doesn't line up exactly to the top of the page or some other marker?  Different tattooz assigned to each comic title, so they can tell it has the wrong one?  Can they even see the tattooz in the insert? Seems like it would be difficult to tell if original or replacement. Maybe @The Lions Den knows from his past experiences.

I also wonder if there are any instances where a legit 238 gets a qualified label for a married insert because it looks a bit off?  You send in what you know is a legit 238, CGC grader gives it the slant eye, calls it married, gets encapsulated, game over. 

You can't even recheck it yourself when you get it back, without cracking it out and wasting your grading money.  Probably crack it anyway and take your chances on try #2, hoping to miss that same grader.

All good questions my friend ;-) 

I just added the thread in as it had some answers but obviously not all. Curious myself as I've heard of them recognizing that there was no Tatooz included when the book or some of them rather had been created. 

[The Lions Den]

On 10/22/2023 at 9:32 PM, Lightning55 said:

That 18 year old thread has some information, but outdated, in that price guides are back to differentiating prices for issues missing the tattooz insert, or the tattooz missing from the insert.

I'm still trying to figure out how CGC can tell if an insert has been married into a different book than where it originated (e.g. pulled from FF 252 and inserted into ASM 238).  Any theories???

Is there some type of identifier on the inserts that tip off where it was originally used?  Or do they look for staple holes that don't match up perfectly, like extra staple holes? The wrong positioning on the page, doesn't line up exactly to the top of the page or some other marker?  Different tattooz assigned to each comic title, so they can tell it has the wrong one?  Can they even see the tattooz in the insert? Seems like it would be difficult to tell if original or replacement. Maybe @The Lions Den knows from his past experiences.

I also wonder if there are any instances where a legit 238 gets a qualified label for a married insert because it looks a bit off?  You send in what you know is a legit 238, CGC grader gives it the slant eye, calls it married, gets encapsulated, game over. 

You can't even recheck it yourself when you get it back, without cracking it out and wasting your grading money.  Probably crack it anyway and take your chances on try #2, hoping to miss that same grader.

Thanks for the appreciation!  

Unfortunately, I really don't have much experience with this particular issue. Sorry I can't be more helpful...  

 

[Lightning55]

On 10/22/2023 at 10:20 PM, The Lions Den said:

Thanks for the appreciation!  

Unfortunately, I really don't have much experience with this particular issue. Sorry I can't be more helpful...  

 

Come on, get on the horn and ask.  You must have a buddy still grading there.  Inquiring minds want to know more about this mystery. j/k, of course.

[Randall Dowling]

I've posted this before over the years but I'll do so again here (apologies to those that are reading it twice).  Back in the early 90s, I used to run a comic book store in the small Mid-western town where I lived.  We had back stock on many books from over ordering in the 80s including issues like Fantastic Four 252 (which also had the Lakeside Tattooz insert). 

Some people were starting to ask when they bought a copy whether or not it had the Tattooz in the book for the various issues that were supposed to.  To our surprise, very few of the books in our stock had the actual tattooz.  They all had the insert, untampered with.  But there were no tattooz inside the insert (you had to hold it up to the light to see if they were in there).  So, we started asking regular customers if they had them in their books.  Several went home and looked at their copies of both FF 252 and ASM 238 and were shocked to find out that their copies didn't have the tattooz either.  What was remarkable was all of them had purchased copies and bagged them, put them away and hadn't touched them since.  One customer's copies had come from subscriptions (anyone remember the kraft paper wrap around Marvel subscription books?), and he didn't have the tattooz.  All had inserts, relatively few had tattooz.

So, the only conclusion we could come to is that not all copies had tattooz in the insert to begin with.  No idea what percentage but if one used the sampling from our little investigation, far less than half came with tattooz.

Is it possible that some chumpy kids took the tattooz out of books on the newsstand without buying the book?  Sure.  But that wouldn't explain subscription copies or our backstock at the store. 

I personally don't think books without should get the green label.  But I do think blue labels should note whether or not they are there. 

[Gaard]

On 10/22/2023 at 11:24 PM, Randall Dowling said:

I've posted this before over the years but I'll do so again here (apologies to those that are reading it twice).  Back in the early 90s, I used to run a comic book store in the small Mid-western town where I lived.  We had back stock on many books from over ordering in the 80s including issues like Fantastic Four 252 (which also had the Lakeside Tattooz insert). 

Some people were starting to ask when they bought a copy whether or not it had the Tattooz in the book for the various issues that were supposed to.  To our surprise, very few of the books in our stock had the actual tattooz.  They all had the insert, untampered with.  But there were no tattooz inside the insert (you had to hold it up to the light to see if they were in there).  So, we started asking regular customers if they had them in their books.  Several went home and looked at their copies of both FF 252 and ASM 238 and were shocked to find out that their copies didn't have the tattooz either.  What was remarkable was all of them had purchased copies and bagged them, put them away and hadn't touched them since.  One customer's copies had come from subscriptions (anyone remember the kraft paper wrap around Marvel subscription books?), and he didn't have the tattooz.  All had inserts, relatively few had tattooz.

So, the only conclusion we could come to is that not all copies had tattooz in the insert to begin with.  No idea what percentage but if one used the sampling from our little investigation, far less than half came with tattooz.

Is it possible that some chumpy kids took the tattooz out of books on the newsstand without buying the book?  Sure.  But that wouldn't explain subscription copies or our backstock at the store. 

I personally don't think books without should get the green label.  But I do think blue labels should note whether or not they are there. 

I'm pretty sure I read years ago on here where someone explained how easy it was to take the tatooz from one book (say FF 252) and insert them into ASM 238. Could that possibly have something to do with label discrepancy?

Disclaimer - I have no idea what these tatooz even look like, so I may be talking out of my backside.

[sledgehammer]

On 10/22/2023 at 7:05 PM, Lightning55 said:

Apparently ASM 238 also has its quirky situations.  This listing is a Newsstand issue, has the blurb on the front promoting the tattooz, so should have the tattooz to be complete. But it has a blue label, and recently, in 2022 Cert lookup. Should be a Qualified Green or Incomplete 0.5 Blue.

Just another error at grading or QC?

The 2.5 copy is too low of a grade to get a qualified label.

They don't give qualified labels for books in that bad of shape.

[sledgehammer]

On 10/22/2023 at 5:18 PM, Ixthinon said:

This is in regards with the Tatooz inclusion was for some of the Marvel titles released in March 1983, which included ASM 238. I have looked into titles that could have the tatooz and noticed that CGC awards them a blue label with or without the Tatooz. Like Say UXM 167 some of these books have the Tatooz, while some do not - both blue label. Why is ASM 238 different in this regard to whether it gets a blue or green label? Some of the ASM 238's surely did not even come with them in the first place, just as the other Marvel issues from March 1983.  

Why would you think that other books from March 1983 have them?

Only FF 252 and ASM 238 note on their covers that they are included?

[Randall Dowling]

On 10/23/2023 at 6:49 AM, sledgehammer said:

Why would you think that other books from March 1983 have them?

Only FF 252 and ASM 238 note on their covers that they are included?

I forget every other issue that had them.  But pretty sure I've seen the insert in these others:

• Iron Man 168
• Marvel Tales 149
• X-men 167
• Captain America 279
• Thor 329
• Avengers 229
• Conan 144

Probably other issues, as well.  I don't think these had the insert in every issue printed.  May have been regional or similar to Mark Jewelers?  I don't know.

[The Lions Den]

On 10/22/2023 at 10:27 PM, Lightning55 said:

Come on, get on the horn and ask.  You must have a buddy still grading there.  Inquiring minds want to know more about this mystery. j/k, of course.

I do still have some friends that work there, but Lord knows they're probably grading books right now... 

What I can tell you is that the graders do check for them, and if they're not in the book it'd be considered incomplete and would usually get a Qualified label (unless the book is low grade).  

Edited October 23, 2023 by The Lions Den

[sledgehammer]

My gut reaction as a collector is that I couldn't care less if the tattooz are in the insert, but I do feel differently about the insert missing notation.

It's not quite rational in my mind, but it feels much more like something was ripped out of the book.

A recent Ebay auction (always a big mistake) 9.6 WHITE, non- newsstand, "insert missing", not "tattooz missing", ended 8/5 at $373.

Prices have dropped even more since early August.

 

[sledgehammer]

On 10/22/2023 at 8:32 PM, Lightning55 said:

That 18 year old thread has some information, but outdated, in that price guides are back to differentiating prices for issues missing the tattooz insert, or the tattooz missing from the insert.

I'm still trying to figure out how CGC can tell if an insert has been married into a different book than where it originated (e.g. pulled from FF 252 and inserted into ASM 238).  Any theories???

I also wonder if there are any instances where a legit 238 gets a qualified label for a married insert because it looks a bit off?  You send in what you know is a legit 238, CGC grader gives it the slant eye, calls it married, gets encapsulated, game over. 

 

Yes.

This 6.0 Qualified label notes exactly that. "Insert married."

https://www.ebay.com/itm/334983986846?hash=item4dfe99fe9e:g:c1UAAOSw7Hhk1UJy&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4OqaGRdVJuNuDw0DaAC3gJbHel2FhxqrqLDQyc6HqNLb82t9BUCd7v8vgXT0zkMmOCGvu9kbNxujpHy3r8KP%2BBgfbupPWiYpKsfMBs0br23jPEXntVWdRZMV2yhJ26DU%2FpGGsZUHzOq%2FSbjT7pQTWaebifRqIYFl%2BJSDoqRVJRbE1u%2F1jSLMFkC8EPleqrCKJJUnuTS9QNxrrq6t%2Buss4qD2UeafwlUj%2FYBsJOH9TSCkjVk5O2p1QQjIxvUcmomQ1h%2FYuJQMF2jkk0uyoU3laCfljlg0ctk%2FPZ%2BhNXdzKv8l|tkp%3ABk9SR7i19sfrYg

[FigaroToe]

I had no idea CGC awards a blue label despite the missing Tatooz! I have a NM copy w/o the Tatooz insert that I've been holding because I didn't want a green label. I'm submitting this next round! Thanks OP (even if that wasn't your intention).

 

edit: reading the thread again, maybe it's still up in the air. Wish there was a pre-screen for only blue labels lol.

Edited October 23, 2023 by FigaroToe

[Lightning55]

On 10/23/2023 at 11:19 AM, sledgehammer said:

Yes.

This 6.0 Qualified label notes exactly that. "Insert married."

https://www.ebay.com/itm/334983986846?hash=item4dfe99fe9e:g:c1UAAOSw7Hhk1UJy&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4OqaGRdVJuNuDw0DaAC3gJbHel2FhxqrqLDQyc6HqNLb82t9BUCd7v8vgXT0zkMmOCGvu9kbNxujpHy3r8KP%2BBgfbupPWiYpKsfMBs0br23jPEXntVWdRZMV2yhJ26DU%2FpGGsZUHzOq%2FSbjT7pQTWaebifRqIYFl%2BJSDoqRVJRbE1u%2F1jSLMFkC8EPleqrCKJJUnuTS9QNxrrq6t%2Buss4qD2UeafwlUj%2FYBsJOH9TSCkjVk5O2p1QQjIxvUcmomQ1h%2FYuJQMF2jkk0uyoU3laCfljlg0ctk%2FPZ%2BhNXdzKv8l|tkp%3ABk9SR7i19sfrYg

I realize they can tell, as I said in my post,  so this is no help. It's noted on many slabs. I want to know exactly how they can tell.

[Lightning55]

On 10/23/2023 at 12:02 PM, FigaroToe said:

I had no idea CGC awards a blue label despite the missing Tatooz! I have a NM copy w/o the Tatooz insert that I've been holding because I didn't want a green label. I'm submitting this next round! Thanks OP (even if that wasn't your intention).

 

edit: reading the thread again, maybe it's still up in the air. Wish there was a pre-screen for only blue labels lol.

It's really not up in the air. It will get a green label unless very low grade, or if they goof and use the wrong label.