Larson Copy of Marvel Comics #1 on Heritage

[ciorac]

sad. what other books suffered that treatment.

 

-- exposing to daylight? that kills me.

 

There was a comic store in the new orleans area that hung their keys up near the window. The X-Men #1 got so faded, it was nearly a black and white the last time I saw it!

[Bronty]

Ah yes. I remember seeing many stores doing that back in the day. Bugged me then, bugs me now to think of it

[bluechip]

The stigma of purple labels would recede somewhat if there were a sensible approach to restoration. Mainly -- be SPECIFIC!!!!!

 

I see a PLOD book labelled moderate restoration and the labels say the same thing every time. I have no F-ing idea what was actually done and where it was done! "Pieces added. tears sealed, color touch." It is ALWAYS the same.

 

WHAT pieces added?

 

Color touched WHERE?

 

How MUCH?

 

WHAT tears sealed?

 

 

Sonebody replied that just about everybody lumps all restored boos in the same pile. I dont/ And the average person doesn't automatically assume that all restoration is the same. That certainly isn't how it works in any other field of collecting. Because in other fields of collecting it is DETAILS that matter. Not just a sweeping generalization that all restored is the same and restored is bad.

 

It is not that things are restored at all but the LACK of information that makes people afraid to buy. That and the anti-restoraton fanatics who seem to feel an restored Action 1 should be less collectible than an unrestored Wolverine Unlimited #1.

 

Take away the illogical and irrational insistence on making the details ambiguous and you will see a sea change in the view toward restored books. The heavily restored books and sneakily restored books will get the drubbing they deserve and the books with reverisible and inconsequential alterations will be treated with more respect -- if and when there is also rarity and collectible content.

[tth2]

Just realized two othre things I should have pointed out. This cipy is known to be fadded because a one-time owner displayed it too much. Not to mention it's got a guy's name scrawlled on the cover. (and not a guy who is famous for anything except owning comic books).

 

Those two flaws are both considerable, but neither of them are considered to have any effect whatsoever on the value. Yet "a very small amount of glue" -- easily removable -- brings on an apoplexy and makes cry it may as well be tossed in the trash; save your money for that perfect 9.8 slabbed copy of a Marvel Mystery reprint! Bound to increase in value while this piece of restored toilet paper sinks out of sight.

If you feel so strongly about it, put your money where your mouth is and buy the book at a bargain price as a result of being unfairly stigmatized.

[ArAich]

 

My Grail book.......................

 

 

stand in line Bub!!!...

[bluechip]

Re:

 

If you feel so strongly about it, put your money where your mouth is and buy the book at a bargain price as a result of being unfairly stigmatized

 

Aside from the fact I already have a copy of marvel 1 that suits me, there is the following that prevents me from wanting to bid. .

 

Unfortunately, as noted in my first post, I consider the book unfairly stigmatized for the glue BUT also not to be as stigmatized as it should be for having writing on the cover and serious fading to the entire cover.

 

I am trying to point out the incongruity of a book not being hit for having severe cover fading even as it is hard hit for having an easily removable dot of glue. You cannot fix the fading. You can fix the glue.

 

And I consider it even less rational that, as we all know, the fading would be considered monstrous if it had occured when the cover was cleaned. Take that book without the larson name, with faded cover colors caused by cleaning, and you'd end up with a PLOD book graded apparent vgfine or so.

 

It is just plain absurd to say that damage is okay so long as it's accidental or caused by the sun. Or that writing is okay if the intent is to deface the cover but not okay if the intent is to fill in a tiny of missing color.

 

Its aburd to say fading is unacceptable if caused by an attempt to "restore" the bool, but perfectly okay (and not even to be considered a defect) if it's caused accidentally or by the sun. Damage is damage, and it should all be treated the same.

 

Collecting comics is something I used to avoid telling many people because they sometimes thought you were nuts to do so. Now, lots of people collect comics But now, what embarrasses is the sometimes embarrassing and inexplicable positions people take resulting in the sometimes absurd valuations based not on what happened to a book bvut instead on what somebody was (supposedly) thinking when it occured.

[tth2]

I would certainly agree with you about the fading, I think that should be factored into CGC's grade.

 

On the writing, well, I think I (and quite a few others) would disagree with you, particularly in your description of the word "defacing". But, different strokes for different folks. Some people don't like any writing or date stamps on their books, even when they are the hallmark of a pedigree collection.

 

Finally, I would disagree with you about the importance of intent. Non-intentional changes to a book (i.e., creases, dings, etc.) get reflected in the grade. Intentional changes to a book (i.e., restoration) should be reflected and penalized as such.

[lou_fine]

The stigma of purple labels would recede somewhat if there were a sensible approach to restoration. Mainly -- be SPECIFIC!!!!!

 

I see a PLOD book labelled moderate restoration and the labels say the same thing every time. I have no F-ing idea what was actually done and where it was done! "Pieces added. tears sealed, color touch." It is ALWAYS the same.

 

WHAT pieces added?

 

Color touched WHERE?

 

How MUCH?

 

WHAT tears sealed?

 

 

Sonebody replied that just about everybody lumps all restored boos in the same pile. I dont/ And the average person doesn't automatically assume that all restoration is the same. That certainly isn't how it works in any other field of collecting. Because in other fields of collecting it is DETAILS that matter. Not just a sweeping generalization that all restored is the same and restored is bad.

 

It is not that things are restored at all but the LACK of information that makes people afraid to buy. That and the anti-restoraton fanatics who seem to feel an restored Action 1 should be less collectible than an unrestored Wolverine Unlimited #1.

 

Take away the illogical and irrational insistence on making the details ambiguous and you will see a sea change in the view toward restored books. The heavily restored books and sneakily restored books will get the drubbing they deserve and the books with reverisible and inconsequential alterations will be treated with more respect -- if and when there is also rarity and collectible content.

 

Bluechip;

 

From your registration date, it appears that you are relatively new to these boards here.

 

We have had this same very heated discussion many times in the past. It seems that the majority of collectors have voiced their opinion in favor of a stigmitizing colour label system whereby they could tell at a glance whether a book was good (blue) or bad (purple). Yes, makes total sense to buy the label as opposed to buying the book.

 

Collectors were voicing their opinion that a one colour label system with a formal restoration rating system in place would only lead to absolute confusion in the marketplace. Concern that collectors would be confused with one blue label detailing minor activities such as a tear seal versus major activities such as a rebuilt spine. Much better to have a kindergarten colour flash card system whereby potential buyers wouldn't have to based their purchasing decsions upon reading the resto rating along with the resto notes.

 

As a result, everybody is so much happier now with their undisclosed resto books being maximized to their full potential and then being laundered to an unsuspecting marketplace through their nice clean blue labels.

[adamstrange]

As a result, everybody is so much happier now with their undisclosed resto books being maximized to their full potential and then being laundered to an unsuspecting marketplace through their nice clean blue labels.

 

LF, folks can disagree with you on your first two points and still agree with you on your third. You seem to be over-stretching the strawman argument to make your point.

[aardvark88]

Example of full potential:

 

Larson copy of Marvel Mystery #3 Cgc 9.0 very minor amount of glue on spine of cover . Does not specify if pro or amateur resto on the BLUE label listed in Heritage catalog July, 2004. Seems to be the same Cgc remark on the label of the Larson Marvel #1 PLOD denoted slight Amateur resto.

[lou_fine]

Maybe if it wasn't such a recognizable pedigree it would do better with the glue removed. Most people would know the Larson had a PLOD at one time, and now it was blue. That stigma could mitigate the upward mobility of the book's price.

 

...not as much as the G-D forsaken demonic curse on this hobby, spawn from Hell itself known as the restoration symbolizing damned purple label !!

 

Are you saying the real curse on this book is the colour of the label as opposed to the actual glue on the cover. Now that's a shocking surprise.

 

As tth2 and other board members have already stated on the 'Tec #20 thread, the "very minor amount of glue" comment on that book is not going to affect the price for the simple reason the book has still been blessed with a blue label. Now, this Larson Marvel #1 is a completely different animal since its "minor amount of glue" comment has been cursed with the PLOD.

 

Makes total sense to me.

[FFB]

Wow.Even the Larson does not have that rich blue cover.

 

 

....and the reason being it the first guy who bought this and other GA keys at the first Sothebys auction allowed the book to be displayed in full daylight and sun.....He was not a comic book guy....the book faded....

 

Here's what it used to look like.

 

[RareHighGrade]

Here's what it used to look like.

 

That's depressing.

[Comicdey]

more than depressing......sickening....it was a blue beauty before.

[lou_fine]

Here's what it used to look like.

 

That's depressing.

 

Not really as it just depends on why you brought the books in the first place.

 

If I remember correctly, his entire purpose for buying these GA keys were to put them on public display as part of a travelling road show. His objective was not to store them away in some heat and light sensitive safety deposit box and wait for them to go up in value.

 

Looks like he was able to achieve what he wanted when he purchased the books. I certainly wouldn't have done the same, but to each their own.

[Rip]

Wow.Even the Larson does not have that rich blue cover.

 

 

....and the reason being it the first guy who bought this and other GA keys at the first Sothebys auction allowed the book to be displayed in full daylight and sun.....He was not a comic book guy....the book faded....

 

Here's what it used to look like.

 

 

Wow your F-ing kidding me. That sucks

[Aman619]

displaying the book was fine. But theres a smart way, and a dumb way. He could have protected color loss AND shown it off, couldnt he?

[tth2]

displaying the book was fine. But theres a smart way, and a dumb way. He could have protected color loss AND shown it off, couldnt he?

Maybe it just wasn't important to him. It only seems like a big deal to us because we have a benchmark to reference it against. Who knows, if you could take a time machine to when the Mona Lisa was first painted, maybe you would realize that what we see today is a horribly faded version, or maybe a horribly dingy version, resulting from many hundreds of years of being publicly displayed. But we don't recoil in horror because what we have is all we know, and it would've been a much greater loss for the painting to not be publicly displayed. The only difference between the two is we don't have a benchmark for the Mona Lisa to realize how nice it used to look.

[showcase4]

Wow.Even the Larson does not have that rich blue cover.

 

 

....and the reason being it the first guy who bought this and other GA keys at the first Sothebys auction allowed the book to be displayed in full daylight and sun.....He was not a comic book guy....the book faded....

 

This is pretty suprising to me...the "non comic book guy" who bought this book had a considerable investment in it, and assuming he was at the auction, would have seen all the hype and heard the description of the books importance read by the auctioneer. Even if he knew squat about comics, he knew this book was old and made of delicate paper...you would think he would check with someone knowledgable about proper storage and display methods to at least protect his investment, much less the integrity of the book.

 

This is like me buying a rare, old, expensive Indian head penny at a coin auction, and rubbing it with a pencil eraser to make it shine!

[Norrin_Radd]

Here's what it used to look like.

 

 

Wow your F-ing kidding me. That sucks

 

Yeah. This has been brought up before. But it's the first time I've seen a current picture of the comic. Very sad.