Was this Leading Comics (Rockford) Worked On?

[esquirecomics]

BTW, I think one of the reasons a moderate or big-ticket item makes a 2nd, 3rd or 4th appearance in Heritage auctions is because Heritage sends those nifty coupons for half-off listing fees to winning bidders in case they want to sell the book through Heritage in the future. Seems like smart marketing to me.

 

I was not asking about from the Heritage marketing standpoint. I already noted this was their general business practice.

 

I was seeking the opinions of others regarding the motivation for the consignors. I view the continual reconsigning of the same books within short periods of time to be potentially harmful to the market, not helpful, for a number of reasons. Most auction houses would never permit this to happen. I'd love to know whether the owner is a dealer or collector. I think it shows a lot about their interest in the community versus their own personal interests. And I am not saying that one versus the other is wrong or right, not just noting it.

[MrBedrock]

Richard, that is a poor example in my opinion. My title above is not leading (no pun intended) at all. It is a simple question with no undertone. I presented the known facts. People responded with their conjectured answers. Your example about the stopping of beating one's wife, no matter what the answer would be (as we all know), insinuates a history of the action.

 

And unless you know something that none of us know, I know of no basis for you to conclude that somehow this thread led to the book being re-offered or tainted. It is patently absurd, as far as I am concerned, that everytime someone questions the background/history of a book that somehow this automatically equates to "tainting".

 

Now, I fully understand that there are some dealers who would prefer no one ever do any such thing for any book, but sorry to say those days are over my friend.

 

I am curious which facts you offered, other then the fact that it had been resubbed.

[nearmint]

I was thinking of bidding on it, 'til I found out there might be a question as to whether it had been worked on.

 

Richard, I think the general consenus at this stage was that the "modification" was more likely a scanning issue. There might have been an attempt to resub for a higher grade, but then again it could be that the slab cracked and was merely replaced. We won't know for sure until the owner is identified and asked.

 

I would be curious as to your opinion on the larger issue that I think the latest auction brings back to the forefront, and that is the frequency in which some books continually seem to be placed back up for auction, particularly in the same auction house. I simply do not see how this is beneficial to the industry. I can expand upon this if necessary, though I imagine you are aware of the debate to which I refer.

 

Seems the main issue of this thread is the fact that someone questioned the background of the comic in the subject line. By doing so, that person may in fact have led this book to find its way back onto the market. At the least, by questioning its background in this type of forum he has tainted the folks reading it. I don't believe there was ever a consensus as to what happened.

 

I'm sorry guys but obviously I am simply not as sensitive as some of you seem to be, for your own particular reasons, with respect to these types of matters.

 

Richard, that is a poor example in my opinion. My title above is not leading (no pun intended) at all. It is a simple question with no undertone. I presented the known facts. People responded with their conjectured answers. Your example about the stopping of beating one's wife, no matter what the answer would be (as we all know), insinuates a history of the action.

 

And unless you know something that none of us know, I know of no basis for you to conclude that somehow this thread led to the book being re-offered or tainted. It is patently absurd, as far as I am concerned, that everytime someone questions the background/history of a book that somehow this automatically equates to "tainting".

 

Now, I fully understand that there are some dealers who would prefer no one ever do any such thing for any book, but sorry to say those days are over my friend.

 

Mark, the problem I have with this thread is that after it was demonstrated that the CGC serial # had not changed, clearly indicating that the book had only been re-holdered, you still wouldn't edit the title. Even someone as seasoned as Richard was backing off from bidding on the book because this thread called the book into question.

 

I understand that, prior to this thread, you were unaware that CGC always changes the serial number on a resub, but never on a reholder. Once we made that clear to you, you should have edited the title.

 

Do I think the resto status of a book can be called into question? Sure. We see it here all the time, but generally there's some concrete evidence presented of defects that have vanished, or have been improved, to legitimize the concern.

[esquirecomics]

Richard, that is a poor example in my opinion. My title above is not leading (no pun intended) at all. It is a simple question with no undertone. I presented the known facts. People responded with their conjectured answers. Your example about the stopping of beating one's wife, no matter what the answer would be (as we all know), insinuates a history of the action.

 

And unless you know something that none of us know, I know of no basis for you to conclude that somehow this thread led to the book being re-offered or tainted. It is patently absurd, as far as I am concerned, that everytime someone questions the background/history of a book that somehow this automatically equates to "tainting".

 

Now, I fully understand that there are some dealers who would prefer no one ever do any such thing for any book, but sorry to say those days are over my friend.

 

I am curious which facts you offered, other then the fact that it had been resubbed.

 

They are all listed in this thread Richard. Dates, times, places, as well as my own personal, first-hand experience with this book.

[MrBedrock]

I was thinking of bidding on it, 'til I found out there might be a question as to whether it had been worked on.

 

Richard, I think the general consenus at this stage was that the "modification" was more likely a scanning issue. There might have been an attempt to resub for a higher grade, but then again it could be that the slab cracked and was merely replaced. We won't know for sure until the owner is identified and asked.

 

I would be curious as to your opinion on the larger issue that I think the latest auction brings back to the forefront, and that is the frequency in which some books continually seem to be placed back up for auction, particularly in the same auction house. I simply do not see how this is beneficial to the industry. I can expand upon this if necessary, though I imagine you are aware of the debate to which I refer.

 

Seems the main issue of this thread is the fact that someone questioned the background of the comic in the subject line. By doing so, that person may in fact have led this book to find its way back onto the market. At the least, by questioning its background in this type of forum he has tainted the folks reading it. I don't believe there was ever a consensus as to what happened.

 

I'm sorry guys but obviously I am simply not as sensitive as some of you seem to be, for your own particular reasons, with respect to these types of matters.

 

Richard, that is a poor example in my opinion. My title above is not leading (no pun intended) at all. It is a simple question with no undertone. I presented the known facts. People responded with their conjectured answers. Your example about the stopping of beating one's wife, no matter what the answer would be (as we all know), insinuates a history of the action.

 

And unless you know something that none of us know, I know of no basis for you to conclude that somehow this thread led to the book being re-offered or tainted. It is patently absurd, as far as I am concerned, that everytime someone questions the background/history of a book that somehow this automatically equates to "tainting".

 

Now, I fully understand that there are some dealers who would prefer no one ever do any such thing for any book, but sorry to say those days are over my friend.

 

Mark, the problem I have with this thread is that after it was demonstrated that the CGC serial # had not changed, clearly indicating that the book had only been re-holdered, you still wouldn't edit the title. Even someone as seasoned as Richard was backing off from bidding on the book because this thread called the book into question.

 

I understand that, prior to this thread, you were unaware that CGC always changes the serial number on a resub, but never on a reholder. Once we made that clear to you, you should have edited the title.

 

Do I think the resto status of a book can be called into question? Sure. We see it here all the time, but generally there's some concrete evidence presented of defects that have vanished, or have been improved, to legitimize the concern.

 

I must admit my statement about bidding was made with tongue firmly in cheek, but it was made to express my feelings regarding just these points. Nicely stated!

[esquirecomics]

I understand that, prior to this thread, you were unaware that CGC always changes the serial number on a resub, but never on a reholder. Once we made that clear to you, you should have edited the title.

 

We? Who is "we"?

 

Your premise, Jeff, that I should have edited my thread title (1) presumes I still had that ability from a technical standpoint and (2) that I agreed with you, which I did not and do not still, that there was anything wrong with the title of my thread.

 

Moreover, I have been informed by one experienced CGC user that, in fact, CGC does not "always" change the serial number on a resub but "never" on a reholder.

 

Which version is true, I do not know.

[esquirecomics]

I was thinking of bidding on it, 'til I found out there might be a question as to whether it had been worked on.

 

Richard, I think the general consenus at this stage was that the "modification" was more likely a scanning issue. There might have been an attempt to resub for a higher grade, but then again it could be that the slab cracked and was merely replaced. We won't know for sure until the owner is identified and asked.

 

I would be curious as to your opinion on the larger issue that I think the latest auction brings back to the forefront, and that is the frequency in which some books continually seem to be placed back up for auction, particularly in the same auction house. I simply do not see how this is beneficial to the industry. I can expand upon this if necessary, though I imagine you are aware of the debate to which I refer.

 

Seems the main issue of this thread is the fact that someone questioned the background of the comic in the subject line. By doing so, that person may in fact have led this book to find its way back onto the market. At the least, by questioning its background in this type of forum he has tainted the folks reading it. I don't believe there was ever a consensus as to what happened.

 

I'm sorry guys but obviously I am simply not as sensitive as some of you seem to be, for your own particular reasons, with respect to these types of matters.

 

Richard, that is a poor example in my opinion. My title above is not leading (no pun intended) at all. It is a simple question with no undertone. I presented the known facts. People responded with their conjectured answers. Your example about the stopping of beating one's wife, no matter what the answer would be (as we all know), insinuates a history of the action.

 

And unless you know something that none of us know, I know of no basis for you to conclude that somehow this thread led to the book being re-offered or tainted. It is patently absurd, as far as I am concerned, that everytime someone questions the background/history of a book that somehow this automatically equates to "tainting".

 

Now, I fully understand that there are some dealers who would prefer no one ever do any such thing for any book, but sorry to say those days are over my friend.

 

Mark, the problem I have with this thread is that after it was demonstrated that the CGC serial # had not changed, clearly indicating that the book had only been re-holdered, you still wouldn't edit the title. Even someone as seasoned as Richard was backing off from bidding on the book because this thread called the book into question.

 

I understand that, prior to this thread, you were unaware that CGC always changes the serial number on a resub, but never on a reholder. Once we made that clear to you, you should have edited the title.

 

Do I think the resto status of a book can be called into question? Sure. We see it here all the time, but generally there's some concrete evidence presented of defects that have vanished, or have been improved, to legitimize the concern.

 

I must admit my statement about bidding was made with tongue firmly in cheek, but it was made to express my feelings regarding just these points. Nicely stated!

 

You're learning Richard that some people on these boards only know how to interpret statements literally.

[nearmint]

I understand that, prior to this thread, you were unaware that CGC always changes the serial number on a resub, but never on a reholder. Once we made that clear to you, you should have edited the title.

 

We? Who is "we"?

 

Your premise, Jeff, that I should have edited my thread title (1) presumes I still had that ability from a technical standpoint and (2) that I agreed with you, which I did not and do not still, that there was anything wrong with the title of my thread.

 

Moreover, I have been informed by one experienced CGC user that, in fact, CGC does not "always" change the serial number on a resub but "never" on a reholder.

 

Which version is true, I do not know.

 

"We" were Flying Donut, myself, and FFB.

I am not presuming that you had the ability from a technical standpoint to edit your post. In fact, you had 24 hours, and the posts from FD, myself, and FFB were all well within that 24 hour period.

Nor am I presuming that you agree with me. Which is why I posted the .

[MrBedrock]

I was thinking of bidding on it, 'til I found out there might be a question as to whether it had been worked on.

 

Richard, I think the general consenus at this stage was that the "modification" was more likely a scanning issue. There might have been an attempt to resub for a higher grade, but then again it could be that the slab cracked and was merely replaced. We won't know for sure until the owner is identified and asked.

 

I would be curious as to your opinion on the larger issue that I think the latest auction brings back to the forefront, and that is the frequency in which some books continually seem to be placed back up for auction, particularly in the same auction house. I simply do not see how this is beneficial to the industry. I can expand upon this if necessary, though I imagine you are aware of the debate to which I refer.

 

Seems the main issue of this thread is the fact that someone questioned the background of the comic in the subject line. By doing so, that person may in fact have led this book to find its way back onto the market. At the least, by questioning its background in this type of forum he has tainted the folks reading it. I don't believe there was ever a consensus as to what happened.

 

I'm sorry guys but obviously I am simply not as sensitive as some of you seem to be, for your own particular reasons, with respect to these types of matters.

 

Richard, that is a poor example in my opinion. My title above is not leading (no pun intended) at all. It is a simple question with no undertone. I presented the known facts. People responded with their conjectured answers. Your example about the stopping of beating one's wife, no matter what the answer would be (as we all know), insinuates a history of the action.

 

And unless you know something that none of us know, I know of no basis for you to conclude that somehow this thread led to the book being re-offered or tainted. It is patently absurd, as far as I am concerned, that everytime someone questions the background/history of a book that somehow this automatically equates to "tainting".

 

Now, I fully understand that there are some dealers who would prefer no one ever do any such thing for any book, but sorry to say those days are over my friend.

 

Mark, the problem I have with this thread is that after it was demonstrated that the CGC serial # had not changed, clearly indicating that the book had only been re-holdered, you still wouldn't edit the title. Even someone as seasoned as Richard was backing off from bidding on the book because this thread called the book into question.

 

I understand that, prior to this thread, you were unaware that CGC always changes the serial number on a resub, but never on a reholder. Once we made that clear to you, you should have edited the title.

 

Do I think the resto status of a book can be called into question? Sure. We see it here all the time, but generally there's some concrete evidence presented of defects that have vanished, or have been improved, to legitimize the concern.

 

I must admit my statement about bidding was made with tongue firmly in cheek, but it was made to express my feelings regarding just these points. Nicely stated!

 

You're learning Richard that some people on these boards only know how to interpret statements literally.

 

You, on the otherhand, interpret statements however they best suit you. I thought nearmint's statement was pretty straightforward.

[Shield]

I understand that, prior to this thread, you were unaware that CGC always changes the serial number on a resub, but never on a reholder. Once we made that clear to you, you should have edited the title.

 

We? Who is "we"?

 

Your premise, Jeff, that I should have edited my thread title (1) presumes I still had that ability from a technical standpoint and (2) that I agreed with you, which I did not and do not still, that there was anything wrong with the title of my thread.

 

Moreover, I have been informed by one experienced CGC user that, in fact, CGC does not "always" change the serial number on a resub but "never" on a reholder.

 

Which version is true, I do not know.

 

"We" were Flying Donut, myself, and FFB.

I am not presuming that you had the ability from a technical standpoint to edit your post. In fact, you had 24 hours, and the posts from FD, myself, and FFB were all well within that 24 hour period.

Nor am I presuming that you agree with me. Which is why I posted the .

 

Add me to the "we". I haven't read any "facts" in this thread that suggest this book has ever had any work done to it. Regraded, recanned? You bet. If I owned the book and was trying to unload it I'd be TO'd by the title of this thread.

 

[esquirecomics]

I was thinking of bidding on it, 'til I found out there might be a question as to whether it had been worked on.

 

Richard, I think the general consenus at this stage was that the "modification" was more likely a scanning issue. There might have been an attempt to resub for a higher grade, but then again it could be that the slab cracked and was merely replaced. We won't know for sure until the owner is identified and asked.

 

I would be curious as to your opinion on the larger issue that I think the latest auction brings back to the forefront, and that is the frequency in which some books continually seem to be placed back up for auction, particularly in the same auction house. I simply do not see how this is beneficial to the industry. I can expand upon this if necessary, though I imagine you are aware of the debate to which I refer.

 

Seems the main issue of this thread is the fact that someone questioned the background of the comic in the subject line. By doing so, that person may in fact have led this book to find its way back onto the market. At the least, by questioning its background in this type of forum he has tainted the folks reading it. I don't believe there was ever a consensus as to what happened.

 

I'm sorry guys but obviously I am simply not as sensitive as some of you seem to be, for your own particular reasons, with respect to these types of matters.

 

Richard, that is a poor example in my opinion. My title above is not leading (no pun intended) at all. It is a simple question with no undertone. I presented the known facts. People responded with their conjectured answers. Your example about the stopping of beating one's wife, no matter what the answer would be (as we all know), insinuates a history of the action.

 

And unless you know something that none of us know, I know of no basis for you to conclude that somehow this thread led to the book being re-offered or tainted. It is patently absurd, as far as I am concerned, that everytime someone questions the background/history of a book that somehow this automatically equates to "tainting".

 

Now, I fully understand that there are some dealers who would prefer no one ever do any such thing for any book, but sorry to say those days are over my friend.

 

Mark, the problem I have with this thread is that after it was demonstrated that the CGC serial # had not changed, clearly indicating that the book had only been re-holdered, you still wouldn't edit the title. Even someone as seasoned as Richard was backing off from bidding on the book because this thread called the book into question.

 

I understand that, prior to this thread, you were unaware that CGC always changes the serial number on a resub, but never on a reholder. Once we made that clear to you, you should have edited the title.

 

Do I think the resto status of a book can be called into question? Sure. We see it here all the time, but generally there's some concrete evidence presented of defects that have vanished, or have been improved, to legitimize the concern.

 

I must admit my statement about bidding was made with tongue firmly in cheek, but it was made to express my feelings regarding just these points. Nicely stated!

 

You're learning Richard that some people on these boards only know how to interpret statements literally.

 

You, on the otherhand, interpret statements however they best suit you. I thought nearmint's statement was pretty straightforward.

 

Good thing you are not a lawyer Richard (and NearMint/Shield too), you guys would have a continuing headache trying to deal with people who disagree with you and interpret things differently. Its amazing how when people agree with someone's sentiment it always seems "straightforward".

[esquirecomics]

I understand that, prior to this thread, you were unaware that CGC always changes the serial number on a resub, but never on a reholder. Once we made that clear to you, you should have edited the title.

 

We? Who is "we"?

 

Your premise, Jeff, that I should have edited my thread title (1) presumes I still had that ability from a technical standpoint and (2) that I agreed with you, which I did not and do not still, that there was anything wrong with the title of my thread.

 

Moreover, I have been informed by one experienced CGC user that, in fact, CGC does not "always" change the serial number on a resub but "never" on a reholder.

 

Which version is true, I do not know.

 

"We" were Flying Donut, myself, and FFB.

I am not presuming that you had the ability from a technical standpoint to edit your post. In fact, you had 24 hours, and the posts from FD, myself, and FFB were all well within that 24 hour period.

Nor am I presuming that you agree with me. Which is why I posted the .

 

Frankly Jeff, as you well know, it is a rare moment that I seem to agree with you on much of anything, so we might as well just accept that and move on in life.

[esquirecomics]

Seems the main issue of this thread is the fact that someone questioned the background of the comic in the subject line. By doing so, that person may in fact have led this book to find its way back onto the market. At the least, by questioning its background in this type of forum he has tainted the folks reading it. I don't believe there was ever a consensus as to what happened.

 

I was reading and responding to these comments so late last night when I was tired that I clearly missed the most significant point in your comment Richard.

 

As far as I know, you are likely the biggest MAJOR dealer to actually publicly acknowledge, concede or admit (people can choose their adjective), that questioning a book's background, and let's be clear we are talking about resubs, dry cleaning and pressing primarily (and all other manipulation techniques that are not universally accepted as constituting restoration or routinely identifiable by CGC), can have a negative stigma on the value of a book. This is an amazing statement from someone very well connected and deep inside the hobby. Not even many of the NOD members take such a position. All they desire is disclosure of the information.

 

I applaud your honesty here Richard.

 

Of course, why should there be a stigma if nothing wrong is being done (and I am not saying anything wrong is being done, just following the logic of your statement)? That is the $64,000 question and a debate that will continue within this community. Still, recognition of the issue is a first step towards resolving or addressing it. I guess one small step at a time.

 

BTW, whether a book has been manipulated is just part of the debate. This thread also addressed the issue of scan manipulation (deliberate or inadvertent). I know that I always want each of my customers to not only receive what they ordered but also receive what they believe they ordered. The scans of this book as advertised in the auctions are not reflective of the book that exists, or at least existed when I owned it up until last year. I had that book in my possession for two or so years. I know it quite well. I brought it to shows many times. I showed it to people many times. It is a beautiful book, but with nowhere near the bright, reflective colors that these recent scans displayed.

 

I said it from the beginning in this thead that were I to have purchased this book based on the scans, I would be sorely disappointed upon receipt. I view this type of concern no differently than false advertising (which can also be intentional or unintentional). I always make sure my scans accurately reflect the true colors of the book, and I would hope everyone else does the same. So, would I want this thread to caution anyone considering purchasing this book, you bet! It's called given a prospective buyer all relevant information in order to reach an informed decision. I realize some people don't want to promote that policy, but I'll stick to my principles and continue to do so.

[MrBedrock]

Seems the main issue of this thread is the fact that someone questioned the background of the comic in the subject line. By doing so, that person may in fact have led this book to find its way back onto the market. At the least, by questioning its background in this type of forum he has tainted the folks reading it. I don't believe there was ever a consensus as to what happened.

 

I was reading and responding to these comments so late last night when I was tired that I clearly missed the most significant point in your comment Richard.

 

As far as I know, you are likely the biggest MAJOR dealer to actually publicly acknowledge, concede or admit (people can choose their adjective), that questioning a book's background, and let's be clear we are talking about resubs, dry cleaning and pressing primarily (and all other manipulation techniques that are not universally accepted as constituting restoration or routinely identifiable by CGC), can have a negative stigma on the value of a book. This is an amazing statement from someone very well connected and deep inside the hobby. Not even many of the NOD members take such a position. All they desire is disclosure of the information.

 

I applaud your honesty here Richard.

 

Of course, why should there be a stigma if nothing wrong is being done (and I am not saying anything wrong is being done, just following the logic of your statement)? That is the $64,000 question and a debate that will continue within this community. Still, recognition of the issue is a first step towards resolving or addressing it. I guess one small step at a time.

 

BTW, whether a book has been manipulated is just part of the debate. This thread also addressed the issue of scan manipulation (deliberate or inadvertent). I know that I always want each of my customers to not only receive what they ordered but also receive what they believe they ordered. The scans of this book as advertised in the auctions are not reflective of the book that exists, or at least existed when I owned it up until last year. I had that book in my possession for two or so years. I know it quite well. I brought it to shows many times. I showed it to people many times. It is a beautiful book, but with nowhere near the bright, reflective colors that these recent scans displayed.

 

I said it from the beginning in this thead that were I to have purchased this book based on the scans, I would be sorely disappointed upon receipt. I view this type of concern no differently than false advertising (which can also be intentional or unintentional). I always make sure my scans accurately reflect the true colors of the book, and I would hope everyone else does the same. So, would I want this thread to caution anyone considering purchasing this book, you bet! It's called given a prospective buyer all relevant information in order to reach an informed decision. I realize some people don't want to promote that policy, but I'll stick to my principles and continue to do so.

 

All I can honestly say in response to this is "What the ........?". I guess even when you are awake you miss the point. I mean, thanks for the backhanded applause, but, well, HUH? It's this kind of twisted b.s. logic that made me choose the honest profession of comic dealer.

[nearmint]

I understand that, prior to this thread, you were unaware that CGC always changes the serial number on a resub, but never on a reholder. Once we made that clear to you, you should have edited the title.

 

We? Who is "we"?

 

Your premise, Jeff, that I should have edited my thread title (1) presumes I still had that ability from a technical standpoint and (2) that I agreed with you, which I did not and do not still, that there was anything wrong with the title of my thread.

 

Moreover, I have been informed by one experienced CGC user that, in fact, CGC does not "always" change the serial number on a resub but "never" on a reholder.

 

Which version is true, I do not know.

 

"We" were Flying Donut, myself, and FFB.

I am not presuming that you had the ability from a technical standpoint to edit your post. In fact, you had 24 hours, and the posts from FD, myself, and FFB were all well within that 24 hour period.

Nor am I presuming that you agree with me. Which is why I posted the .

 

Frankly Jeff, as you well know, it is a rare moment that I seem to agree with you on much of anything, so we might as well just accept that and move on in life.

 

Nice cop out.

[nearmint]

This thread also addressed the issue of scan manipulation (deliberate or inadvertent). I know that I always want each of my customers to not only receive what they ordered but also receive what they believe they ordered. The scans of this book as advertised in the auctions are not reflective of the book that exists, or at least existed when I owned it up until last year. I had that book in my possession for two or so years. I know it quite well. I brought it to shows many times. I showed it to people many times. It is a beautiful book, but with nowhere near the bright, reflective colors that these recent scans displayed.

 

I said it from the beginning in this thead that were I to have purchased this book based on the scans, I would be sorely disappointed upon receipt. I view this type of concern no differently than false advertising (which can also be intentional or unintentional). I always make sure my scans accurately reflect the true colors of the book, and I would hope everyone else does the same. So, would I want this thread to caution anyone considering purchasing this book, you bet! It's called given a prospective buyer all relevant information in order to reach an informed decision. I realize some people don't want to promote that policy, but I'll stick to my principles and continue to do so.

 

You could have achieved that same goal by titling this thread "have these scans been manipulated?", as I suggested a month ago. Full disclosure would have been achieved, without recklessly calling into question the resto status of the book.

[MrBedrock]

Understand up front that I am using the Mark Zaid method of argument.......

 

 

 

I just noticed that the Rockford CGC 9.0 copy of Leading Comics #1, which I used to own, was in today's Hake's auction.

 

It originally sold in an old CGC label (#0055934006) on October 19, 2003 via Heritage for $3,680.

 

 

I purchased it, as I recall, sometime in 2004 in a private transaction.

 

I then sold it on January 21, 2006, for $5,750.

 

 

Just one year later whomever purchased it already had flipped it or was trying to flip it,

 

BTW, the ending online bid for this book via Hakes was $550!!!!

 

I would say from this set of "Facts" that Esquire Comics sells their comics for too much money and therefore I would be skeptical of any of their offerings. I mean if this is true how could you ever make a return on your investment!

[FFB]

Seems the main issue of this thread is the fact that someone questioned the background of the comic in the subject line. By doing so, that person may in fact have led this book to find its way back onto the market. At the least, by questioning its background in this type of forum he has tainted the folks reading it. I don't believe there was ever a consensus as to what happened.

 

I was reading and responding to these comments so late last night when I was tired that I clearly missed the most significant point in your comment Richard.

 

As far as I know, you are likely the biggest MAJOR dealer to actually publicly acknowledge, concede or admit (people can choose their adjective), that questioning a book's background, and let's be clear we are talking about resubs, dry cleaning and pressing primarily (and all other manipulation techniques that are not universally accepted as constituting restoration or routinely identifiable by CGC), can have a negative stigma on the value of a book. This is an amazing statement from someone very well connected and deep inside the hobby. Not even many of the NOD members take such a position. All they desire is disclosure of the information.

 

I applaud your honesty here Richard.

 

Of course, why should there be a stigma if nothing wrong is being done (and I am not saying anything wrong is being done, just following the logic of your statement)? That is the $64,000 question and a debate that will continue within this community. Still, recognition of the issue is a first step towards resolving or addressing it. I guess one small step at a time.

 

BTW, whether a book has been manipulated is just part of the debate. This thread also addressed the issue of scan manipulation (deliberate or inadvertent). I know that I always want each of my customers to not only receive what they ordered but also receive what they believe they ordered. The scans of this book as advertised in the auctions are not reflective of the book that exists, or at least existed when I owned it up until last year. I had that book in my possession for two or so years. I know it quite well. I brought it to shows many times. I showed it to people many times. It is a beautiful book, but with nowhere near the bright, reflective colors that these recent scans displayed.

 

I said it from the beginning in this thead that were I to have purchased this book based on the scans, I would be sorely disappointed upon receipt. I view this type of concern no differently than false advertising (which can also be intentional or unintentional). I always make sure my scans accurately reflect the true colors of the book, and I would hope everyone else does the same. So, would I want this thread to caution anyone considering purchasing this book, you bet! It's called given a prospective buyer all relevant information in order to reach an informed decision. I realize some people don't want to promote that policy, but I'll stick to my principles and continue to do so.

 

As far as what I can see in this thread, your "principles" include shining a spotlight of suspicion over someone else's book (despite your having no real evidence whatsoever of anything other than Hakes using a brighter scan than you use), by insinuating that their books might be restored or that there is some other funny business going on. (I refer here to your statement on page one that "Either the scan has been manipulated in the sense that the book is being portrayed as "brighter" than it is, or something was done to the book. When I owned that copy it was definitely NOT so "colorful".")

 

Which would be fine if: (a) all scanners created identical scans with identical brightness and color accuracy, and (b) you had the slightest idea what you were talking about when it comes to spotting restoration - but there's the rub. You too often shoot your mouth off about books despite not knowing what you're talking about, and then instead of trying to mitigate any damage you may have done, you take this ludicrous position that your actions are somehow principled and justifiable.

 

Your "principles" are the comic book industry equivalent of letting your dog poop all over your neighbor's lawn for the sake of fertilization. Maybe it does some good on some level, but you are oblivious to any ill effects you might cause to other people who don't deserve it.

[esquirecomics]

Seems the main issue of this thread is the fact that someone questioned the background of the comic in the subject line. By doing so, that person may in fact have led this book to find its way back onto the market. At the least, by questioning its background in this type of forum he has tainted the folks reading it. I don't believe there was ever a consensus as to what happened.

 

I was reading and responding to these comments so late last night when I was tired that I clearly missed the most significant point in your comment Richard.

 

As far as I know, you are likely the biggest MAJOR dealer to actually publicly acknowledge, concede or admit (people can choose their adjective), that questioning a book's background, and let's be clear we are talking about resubs, dry cleaning and pressing primarily (and all other manipulation techniques that are not universally accepted as constituting restoration or routinely identifiable by CGC), can have a negative stigma on the value of a book. This is an amazing statement from someone very well connected and deep inside the hobby. Not even many of the NOD members take such a position. All they desire is disclosure of the information.

 

I applaud your honesty here Richard.

 

Of course, why should there be a stigma if nothing wrong is being done (and I am not saying anything wrong is being done, just following the logic of your statement)? That is the $64,000 question and a debate that will continue within this community. Still, recognition of the issue is a first step towards resolving or addressing it. I guess one small step at a time.

 

BTW, whether a book has been manipulated is just part of the debate. This thread also addressed the issue of scan manipulation (deliberate or inadvertent). I know that I always want each of my customers to not only receive what they ordered but also receive what they believe they ordered. The scans of this book as advertised in the auctions are not reflective of the book that exists, or at least existed when I owned it up until last year. I had that book in my possession for two or so years. I know it quite well. I brought it to shows many times. I showed it to people many times. It is a beautiful book, but with nowhere near the bright, reflective colors that these recent scans displayed.

 

I said it from the beginning in this thead that were I to have purchased this book based on the scans, I would be sorely disappointed upon receipt. I view this type of concern no differently than false advertising (which can also be intentional or unintentional). I always make sure my scans accurately reflect the true colors of the book, and I would hope everyone else does the same. So, would I want this thread to caution anyone considering purchasing this book, you bet! It's called given a prospective buyer all relevant information in order to reach an informed decision. I realize some people don't want to promote that policy, but I'll stick to my principles and continue to do so.

 

All I can honestly say in response to this is "What the ........?". I guess even when you are awake you miss the point. I mean, thanks for the backhanded applause, but, well, HUH? It's this kind of twisted b.s. logic that made me choose the honest profession of comic dealer.

 

Richard, if you want to back away from your own statement, at least have the chutzpah to signify you are doing so.

[esquirecomics]

I understand that, prior to this thread, you were unaware that CGC always changes the serial number on a resub, but never on a reholder. Once we made that clear to you, you should have edited the title.

 

We? Who is "we"?

 

Your premise, Jeff, that I should have edited my thread title (1) presumes I still had that ability from a technical standpoint and (2) that I agreed with you, which I did not and do not still, that there was anything wrong with the title of my thread.

 

Moreover, I have been informed by one experienced CGC user that, in fact, CGC does not "always" change the serial number on a resub but "never" on a reholder.

 

Which version is true, I do not know.

 

"We" were Flying Donut, myself, and FFB.

I am not presuming that you had the ability from a technical standpoint to edit your post. In fact, you had 24 hours, and the posts from FD, myself, and FFB were all well within that 24 hour period.

Nor am I presuming that you agree with me. Which is why I posted the .

 

Frankly Jeff, as you well know, it is a rare moment that I seem to agree with you on much of anything, so we might as well just accept that and move on in life.

 

Nice cop out.

 

Cop out?

 

Let's see. I basically said I didn't agree with you from the start, so why would I agree with you know. You guys are into this "straightforward" talk. Not sure what you don't understand here Jeff. What, because you have FFB on your side somehow that strengthens your position!