CGC 9.8 Hulk Annual #1

[Drummy]

Caveat Emptor. Suffice to say I do a fair amount of research before ponying up money for my beloved mid-grade Marvel keys. I'm not sure on every issue I own, but I'm pretty comfortable with the biggies. It's still a great hobby overall (minus the greed) but you have to be SO careful these days.

 

But it is too bad that the provenance of pedigrees is being destroyed. That sucks.

 

Dan

[Silver Surfer]

The book does look gorgeous and if this square bound was pressed someone did a nice job of it because you can even see and staple indentations on the back cover. Personally I don't have that big of an issue with a one grade bump if its warranted but if a pedgiree designation is removed just to hide the upgrade then it makes me wonder what really happened to the book.

[Red Hook]

 

But it is too bad that the provenance of pedigrees is being destroyed. That sucks.

 

Dan

 

Big time.

[LordRahl]

I was under the impression that squarebounds couldn't be pressed because of the way they are bound. Pretty sure it was either Matt or Tracey Heft that said this. Could be a straight resub although I don't know why he'd leave the pedigree off.

[Mr. Zipper]

I was under the impression that squarebounds couldn't be pressed because of the way they are bound. Pretty sure it was either Matt or Tracey Heft that said this.

 

This is a big misconception.

 

ANY book can be spot pressed to remove small localized bends or dents. You don't need to press the whole book to press out a bent corner or thumb dent on an open edge.

[LordRahl]

Granted. But are you "pressing" a book if you're just straightening out a bent corner or finger dent on the edge of the cover? I straighten bent corners with my fingers all the time and they usually stay put if the book isn't put back in a bag that's too small and pinches the corners.

[Red Hook]

[uclapeterg]

I believe it is the same book. The wrap looks identical to me, with the same minicule flaws at the bindery corners.

 

It doesn't look like the same book to me.

[Mr. Zipper]

Granted. But are you "pressing" a book if you're just straightening out a bent corner or finger dent on the edge of the cover? I straighten bent corners with my fingers all the time and they usually stay put if the book isn't put back in a bag that's too small and pinches the corners.

 

I'm not talking about a slightly bent corner or edge that you can "fix" with your thumb.

 

There are actual tools restorationists have for "spot pressing" small problem areas. Imagine a near perfect book with a crescent shaped bend 4 inches in from the edge. You can't fix that with your thumb, but a restorationist can fix it without having to press the entire book.

 

The point is that there are spot pressing techniques that can improve small imperfections without having to press the entire book. Thus, the theory that squarebounds are "safe" from pressing is erroneous.

[FlyingDonut]

 

Thank you. That allows me to put this whole thread on "ignore". Appreciate it!

[uclapeterg]

 

BTW, I hate hate the BK guy! He looks even freakier than the Scream mask!

[toro]

[jimm94]

I believe it is the same book. The wrap looks identical to me, with the same minicule flaws at the bindery corners.

 

It doesn't look like the same book to me.

 

Hi Peter,

 

Can you point out what you believe the differences are?

 

-Jim

[jimm94]

Here are 3 scans, cropped as tightly as possible...

 

9.6:

 

 

 

9.8:

 

 

 

9.6 and 9.8 Overlayed in Photoshop:

 

 

 

It's the same book.

 

BTW, I have no problem with pressing (whether or not it was performed in this case), but I am very sad to see that the provenance of this book has been concealed through omission on the label.

[comicseekers-migration]

Here are 3 scans, cropped as tightly as possible...

 

9.6:

 

 

 

9.8:

 

 

 

9.6 and 9.8 Overlayed in Photoshop:

 

 

 

It's the same book.

 

BTW, I have no problem with pressing (whether or not it was performed in this case), but I am very sad to see that the provenance of this book has been concealed through omission on the label.

 

They may not be the same book.....there is a white dot across from the Hulks 3rd finger near the spine on the 9.6 which is NOT on the 9.8....unless it's a speck of dust on your scanner.

[nik]

What a fuggin waste of what was a beautiful pedigreed book

[jimm94]

They may not be the same book.....there is a white dot across from the Hulks 3rd finger near the spine on the 9.6 which is NOT on the 9.8....unless it's a speck of dust on your scanner.

 

They aren't from my scanner, but it is most likely dust on the scanner or slab.

 

The wraps and slight miscut are identical on both scans. Another tell tale sign is the errant black ink to the left of the price box.

 

I'm not interested in making a mountain out of a molehill here. I'm just using a few minutes of free time to illustrate that they are the same book. As I said, I don't have a problem with pressing. I also have no problem with re-subs. It's just a damn shame that the pedigree designation has been lost.

[namisgr]

They may not be the same book.....there is a white dot across from the Hulks 3rd finger near the spine on the 9.6 which is NOT on the 9.8....unless it's a speck of dust on your scanner.

 

They aren't from my scanner, but it is most likely dust on the scanner or slab.

 

The wraps and slight miscut are identical on both scans. Another tell tale sign is the errant black ink to the left of the price box.

 

I'm not interested in making a mountain out of a molehill here. I'm just using a few minutes of free time to illustrate that they are the same book. As I said, I don't have a problem with pressing. I also have no problem with re-subs. It's just a damn shame that the pedigree designation has been lost.

 

I agree, Jimm, the 9.8 and 9.6 NL are the same book. From the enlarged Heritage and Nelson scans, one can make out several signature shared details - just compare the right front cover edges, for instance. Not only are they cut identically, but the tiny roughling imperfections (which can not be removed by pressing) are shared as well.

 

The FF 32 9.6 and 9.4 are obviously the same, with the cut, wrap, and Joe and Nadia back cover date stamp making the book very easy to identify.

 

For this collector, old blue labels or original owner books are where it's at, baby!

[tth2]

I believe it is the same book. The wrap looks identical to me, with the same minicule flaws at the bindery corners.

I'm sure you're right, but let's remember these ARE mass produced items that in theory are supposed to be identical, so books that come right after another in a print run could/should be virtually identical. Without any distinguishing characteristics or confirmation from Matt Nelson, I can't put it into my upgrade database.

 

Since so many here are now in the process of building up a rapport with Matt, could someone just ask him if it's the same book?

[tth2]

Could be, but there are no distinguishing characteristics on either book that would make it absolutely certain it's the same book.

But that's the game being played. And debated. Isn't it?

 

Some others in that batch. This one has a date stamp on the back. Same?

Fantastic Four #32 (Marvel, 1964) CGC NM 9.4 Sold for: $862.50

 

Fantastic Four #32, CGC 9.6

 

And these two. Same?

Fantastic Four #48 (Marvel, 1966) CGC VF 8.0 Sold for: $488.75

 

Fantastic Four #48, CGC 8.5

As I've just said to Jim, I have no doubt that the IH Annuals are the same book, but without any distinguishing characteristics it's hard to be 100% sure. With the FF 32, on the other hand, I think there's little doubt.

 

I'll have to take a look at the FF 48.

 

BTW, keep up the great work and keep letting us know what you find!