Larson Marvel Mystery Comics #9

[FFB]

You got that right. That is the question??

 

Not only that, when you look at the Heritage scans they are very detailed and at a glance it does looks like pen and not pencil to me. Also, there would most likely be an imprint on the cover where the "88" was written and would (should have) been picked up by the graders the second time around. How many Larson MMC#9's did they expect to see across their desk the first few years of business anyways. I'm sure the staff at the time were well aware of what was selling in Heritage at that time, ESPECIALLY a grail piece like this.

 

CGC doesn't consider erasure to be restoration, so what difference would it have made whether they could detect the erased 88 or not?

[ciorac]

You got that right. That is the question??

 

Not only that, when you look at the Heritage scans they are very detailed and at a glance it does looks like pen and not pencil to me. Also, there would most likely be an imprint on the cover where the "88" was written and would (should have) been picked up by the graders the second time around. How many Larson MMC#9's did they expect to see across their desk the first few years of business anyways. I'm sure the staff at the time were well aware of what was selling in Heritage at that time, ESPECIALLY a grail piece like this.

 

CGC doesn't consider erasure to be restoration, so what difference would it have made whether they could detect the erased 88 or not?

 

EXACTLY Scott!! As usual you are on top of your game.

[batman_fan]

You got that right. That is the question??

 

Not only that, when you look at the Heritage scans they are very detailed and at a glance it does looks like pen and not pencil to me. Also, there would most likely be an imprint on the cover where the "88" was written and would (should have) been picked up by the graders the second time around. How many Larson MMC#9's did they expect to see across their desk the first few years of business anyways. I'm sure the staff at the time were well aware of what was selling in Heritage at that time, ESPECIALLY a grail piece like this.

 

CGC doesn't consider erasure to be restoration, so what difference would it have made whether they could detect the erased 88 or not?

 

That assumes it was done without a solvent. I thought solvent cleaning was considered restoration. In this case, who knows how it was removed. Surfer thought the 88 was ink but it may be pencil.

[sacentaur]

Hi Steve,

 

I did read your post and I think you are spot on. I use to buy from Heritage quite a bit, but have now stopped. Just too questionable what has happened to the stock they sell. Same for CLINK. Lets see if I stay away or go back to my "spouse that beats me". I am also getting concerned about the original art as well. I have observed a trend for stat replacements and I am wondering how long until it is undisclosed plus there is a potential for other undisclosed restoration work as well.

 

Greg

 

Sounds like you're well aware and right on it, Greg - best of luck (to all of us) as you (we) continue to pursue our passion.

 

STEVE

[sacentaur]

Not only that, when you look at the Heritage scans they are very detailed and at a glance it does looks like pen and not pencil to me.

 

For what it's worth, I'm not aware of any Larsons coded in pen.

 

STEVE

[FFB]

You got that right. That is the question??

 

Not only that, when you look at the Heritage scans they are very detailed and at a glance it does looks like pen and not pencil to me. Also, there would most likely be an imprint on the cover where the "88" was written and would (should have) been picked up by the graders the second time around. How many Larson MMC#9's did they expect to see across their desk the first few years of business anyways. I'm sure the staff at the time were well aware of what was selling in Heritage at that time, ESPECIALLY a grail piece like this.

 

CGC doesn't consider erasure to be restoration, so what difference would it have made whether they could detect the erased 88 or not?

 

That assumes it was done without a solvent. I thought solvent cleaning was considered restoration. In this case, who knows how it was removed. Surfer thought the 88 was ink but it may be pencil.

 

Considering that the distributor callback number was written in 1940, five years before the first ballpoint pen was ever sold in the United States, I'd say there's a pretty slim chance that the 88 is anything other than pencil. It sure ain't fountain pen.

[FFB]

Not only that, when you look at the Heritage scans they are very detailed and at a glance it does looks like pen and not pencil to me.

 

For what it's worth, I'm not aware of any Larsons coded in pen.

 

STEVE

 

And for good reason.

[adamstrange]

You got that right. That is the question??

 

Not only that, when you look at the Heritage scans they are very detailed and at a glance it does looks like pen and not pencil to me. Also, there would most likely be an imprint on the cover where the "88" was written and would (should have) been picked up by the graders the second time around. How many Larson MMC#9's did they expect to see across their desk the first few years of business anyways. I'm sure the staff at the time were well aware of what was selling in Heritage at that time, ESPECIALLY a grail piece like this.

 

CGC doesn't consider erasure to be restoration, so what difference would it have made whether they could detect the erased 88 or not?

 

That assumes it was done without a solvent. I thought solvent cleaning was considered restoration. In this case, who knows how it was removed. Surfer thought the 88 was ink but it may be pencil.

 

Considering that the distributor callback number was written in 1940, five years before the first ballpoint pen was ever sold in the United States, I'd say there's a pretty slim chance that the 88 is anything other than pencil. It sure ain't fountain pen.

 

Nice factoid!

 

Probably would work nicely into a plot for a murder mystery.

[batman_fan]

You got that right. That is the question??

 

Not only that, when you look at the Heritage scans they are very detailed and at a glance it does looks like pen and not pencil to me. Also, there would most likely be an imprint on the cover where the "88" was written and would (should have) been picked up by the graders the second time around. How many Larson MMC#9's did they expect to see across their desk the first few years of business anyways. I'm sure the staff at the time were well aware of what was selling in Heritage at that time, ESPECIALLY a grail piece like this.

 

CGC doesn't consider erasure to be restoration, so what difference would it have made whether they could detect the erased 88 or not?

 

That assumes it was done without a solvent. I thought solvent cleaning was considered restoration. In this case, who knows how it was removed. Surfer thought the 88 was ink but it may be pencil.

 

That would make ink pretty hard to do. Looking at the scans, it appears to be pencil and the pencil doesn't look too dark. That coupled with the white would probably make removing it with a dry method easier. I wonder where the glue was at?

 

Considering that the distributor callback number was written in 1940, five years before the first ballpoint pen was ever sold in the United States, I'd say there's a pretty slim chance that the 88 is anything other than pencil. It sure ain't fountain pen.

[The Black Hand ®]

It looks like pencil. I suppose it could be some kind of grease pencil. Who cares, deception is deception.

[batman_fan]

It looks like pencil. I suppose it could be some kind of grease pencil. Who cares, deception is deception.

 

You don't enjoy trying to deciper CGCs grading standards?

[FFB]

It looks like pencil. I suppose it could be some kind of grease pencil. Who cares, deception is deception.

 

You don't enjoy trying to deciper CGCs grading standards?

 

There is no mystery about dry cleaning not being considered restoration by CGC. It's only been said about a hundred times over the last couple of years.

 

As for where the glue was, it looks like it was at the bottom spine corner, but it's hard to say for sure.

[The Black Hand ®]

It looks like pencil. I suppose it could be some kind of grease pencil. Who cares, deception is deception.

 

You don't enjoy trying to deciper CGCs grading standards?

 

There is no mystery about dry cleaning not being considered restoration by CGC. It's only been said about a hundred times over the last couple of years.

 

As for where the glue was, it looks like it was at the bottom spine corner, but it's hard to say for sure.

 

What about water cleaning? If the cover did shrink some then it looks like it could be water cleaned. Isn't that considered restoration by CGC?

[FFB]

It looks like pencil. I suppose it could be some kind of grease pencil. Who cares, deception is deception.

 

You don't enjoy trying to deciper CGCs grading standards?

 

There is no mystery about dry cleaning not being considered restoration by CGC. It's only been said about a hundred times over the last couple of years.

 

As for where the glue was, it looks like it was at the bottom spine corner, but it's hard to say for sure.

 

What about water cleaning? If the cover did shrink some then it looks like it could be water cleaned. Isn't that considered restoration by CGC?

 

If the book had been cleaned in an aqueous solution, CGC would have caught it. Dimensional changes are not the only observable difference in a book that has been aqueously cleaned. Do you have some indication that the book was aqueously cleaned, or are you asking me to list what CGC does and does not consider to be restoration?

[The Black Hand ®]

Right, there's a feel to paper that's different when it's been cleaned. There was some speculation that the book may have been water cleaned since it looked like the cover had shrunk a bit. We've been looking at the scans and discussing that possibility and also the grading change and speculating on what might be going on with that particular book, that's all. I'm not asking for any kind of list or anything, thank's all the same.

[esquirecomics]

You got that right. That is the question??

 

Not only that, when you look at the Heritage scans they are very detailed and at a glance it does looks like pen and not pencil to me. Also, there would most likely be an imprint on the cover where the "88" was written and would (should have) been picked up by the graders the second time around. How many Larson MMC#9's did they expect to see across their desk the first few years of business anyways. I'm sure the staff at the time were well aware of what was selling in Heritage at that time, ESPECIALLY a grail piece like this.

 

CGC doesn't consider erasure to be restoration, so what difference would it have made whether they could detect the erased 88 or not?

 

For identification purposes at least.

[FFB]

Right, there's a feel to paper that's different when it's been cleaned. There was some speculation that the book may have been water cleaned since it looked like the cover had shrunk a bit. We've been looking at the scans and discussing that possibility and also the grading change and speculating on what might be going on with that particular book, that's all. I'm not asking for any kind of list or anything, thank's all the same.

 

The cover doesn't appear to have shrunk at all, but rather, the sliver of white you see above the top edge appears to be a product of the cover shifting downward a tad relative to the interior pages as a result of the spine roll removal/pressing.

[sacentaur]

The original Larson list notes the Marvel Mystery 9 as "FN (roll warp)".

 

STEVE

[FFB]

You got that right. That is the question??

 

Not only that, when you look at the Heritage scans they are very detailed and at a glance it does looks like pen and not pencil to me. Also, there would most likely be an imprint on the cover where the "88" was written and would (should have) been picked up by the graders the second time around. How many Larson MMC#9's did they expect to see across their desk the first few years of business anyways. I'm sure the staff at the time were well aware of what was selling in Heritage at that time, ESPECIALLY a grail piece like this.

 

CGC doesn't consider erasure to be restoration, so what difference would it have made whether they could detect the erased 88 or not?

 

For identification purposes at least.

 

The resubbed book was labeled as a Larson. Seems like they had no problem identifying it. I'm not saying I'm in favor of erasing markings like that (I'm not), but to say that CGC missed restoration because they didn't tag the dry cleaning is wrong.

[CJ]

Doesn't CGC had a database of all comics they grade.

That being said, I know very little about Church etc ped's but are their multiple copies of issues.

 

If not, and if CGC has a database, then it should be impossible for a PLOD 5.0 to go to a blue 5.5

 

and if CGC doesn't have a database...get one please.