Was this Leading Comics (Rockford) Worked On?

[FlyingDonut]

If it has the same serial number, that would mean the label was submitted along with the book, so it wasn't a resub, but a cracked case.

 

Right, the book was never regraded. Just reholdered. But since I have been told repeatedly by knowledgeable people to look upon all high grade, new label slabs with skepticism, I choose to believe that it was cleaned and pressed anyway -- even though I see no actual evidence of that work being done.

 

As I said, it is unclear to me what took place. All I can say for a fact is that there was a label change and the scan image of the copy in the Hake's auction is NOT an accurate representation of the book when I owned it. The very LARGE scan I supplied above is EXACTLY how the book looked. And those two comparison images are, IMHO, extremely different.

 

Frankly, I am just as concerned if the scan image in any auction (or dealer website or ebay auction for the matter) has been manipulated to falsely convey a certain asethetic image that does not exist as I would be if the book has been cleared and pressed. The issue is one of disclosure, not of the method, treatement or event.

 

I would be quite annoyed if I purchased the copy from Hakes according to the scan and it arrived looking like the copy when I owned it.

 

You don't believe scans are manipulated? Look at nearly every scan in major auction houses. The colors are a little, shall we say, vibrant.

 

Of course I think scans are manipulated. This just happened to be one I caught.

 

It is not appropriate. Whether it is done is a different story.

 

I plan to contact Hakes and inquire about this.

 

Well, before you get all ornery, it could also have to do with the scanner. I've seen the scans that come off of your scanner, and they're dark. Different scanners have different lightness settings for the image - an Epson scanner, for example, will scan "brighter" than a Lexmark scanner, without any manipulation of the colors.

[gpanalysis]

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

 

Mark, you need to look at the eBay live auction results to see where these books ended at. This one realized $2500 (plus 22% BP) - still lower than the previous result, but the $500 on their website I think was where the book ended when Hakes direct internet bidding closed and the ebay/floor bidding opened.

 

BTW, I can't get to the Hakes website at the moment, but I assume at some point they'll update with the on-floor bidding results.

 

George.

[esquirecomics]

If it has the same serial number, that would mean the label was submitted along with the book, so it wasn't a resub, but a cracked case.

 

Right, the book was never regraded. Just reholdered. But since I have been told repeatedly by knowledgeable people to look upon all high grade, new label slabs with skepticism, I choose to believe that it was cleaned and pressed anyway -- even though I see no actual evidence of that work being done.

 

As I said, it is unclear to me what took place. All I can say for a fact is that there was a label change and the scan image of the copy in the Hake's auction is NOT an accurate representation of the book when I owned it. The very LARGE scan I supplied above is EXACTLY how the book looked. And those two comparison images are, IMHO, extremely different.

 

Frankly, I am just as concerned if the scan image in any auction (or dealer website or ebay auction for the matter) has been manipulated to falsely convey a certain asethetic image that does not exist as I would be if the book has been cleared and pressed. The issue is one of disclosure, not of the method, treatement or event.

 

I would be quite annoyed if I purchased the copy from Hakes according to the scan and it arrived looking like the copy when I owned it.

 

You don't believe scans are manipulated? Look at nearly every scan in major auction houses. The colors are a little, shall we say, vibrant.

 

Of course I think scans are manipulated. This just happened to be one I caught.

 

It is not appropriate. Whether it is done is a different story.

 

I plan to contact Hakes and inquire about this.

 

Well, before you get all ornery, it could also have to do with the scanner. I've seen the scans that come off of your scanner, and they're dark. Different scanners have different lightness settings for the image - an Epson scanner, for example, will scan "brighter" than a Lexmark scanner, without any manipulation of the colors.

 

Yes, I do understand that. BUT, remember as I said above I always make sure that my scanned images accurately compare to the actual book. After I scan in a book,I sit with it right in front of me to make sure the final scanned image reflects the true image.

[esquirecomics]

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

 

Mark, you need to look at the eBay live auction results to see where these books ended at. This one realized $2500 (plus 22% BP) - still lower than the previous result, but the $500 on their website I think was where the book ended when Hakes direct internet bidding closed and the ebay/floor bidding opened.

 

BTW, I can't get to the Hakes website at the moment, but I assume at some point they'll update with the on-floor bidding results.

 

George.

 

I figured as much. I believe the Hakes online auction was followed up by a live auction, i.e., it ended up at $550 through their website and then was increased to $2,500 (plus BP) at the actual auction. Still a pathetic result. Doubt it reached reserve. Would be a major loss.

 

I wonder who bought it through Heritage to then try to sell it through Hakes?

 

This is especially intriguing because Heritage would not have hesitated to re-auction it again.

[Shield]

If it has the same serial number, that would mean the label was submitted along with the book, so it wasn't a resub, but a cracked case.

 

Good catch, Dan. It does indeed look like the same serial #.

 

Good catch Dan? the original post said "However, it still bears the same serial #".

[FFB]

Just curious but if I sent in a cracked open slabb with the label for simply reholdering (lets say with an old label) could they not just provide a new label but same cert number? From what I recall the all reholdered books are regraded anyways are they not? You would think that they would be especially for cracked and damaged slabbs.

 

If the posts are broken, the book will be regraded. I believe it gets a new serial number as well when that happens.

 

A lot of people sent in old label books to get the new label because new label books are supposedly easier to sell (something about the grade being more visible on a rack at a convention).

[nearmint]

If it has the same serial number, that would mean the label was submitted along with the book, so it wasn't a resub, but a cracked case.

 

Good catch, Dan. It does indeed look like the same serial #.

 

Good catch Dan? the original post said "However, it still bears the same serial #".

 

Guess I'm just surprised that Mark had to ask if the book had been worked on if he knew the serial number hadn't changed.

[esquirecomics]

If it has the same serial number, that would mean the label was submitted along with the book, so it wasn't a resub, but a cracked case.

 

Good catch, Dan. It does indeed look like the same serial #.

 

Good catch Dan? the original post said "However, it still bears the same serial #".

 

Guess I'm just surprised that Mark had to ask if the book had been worked on if he knew the serial number hadn't changed.

 

Why? That meant nothing to me. CGC has openly stated they want people to resubmit their books and have made changes to grades and PQ. If someone sent in the old label I have no reason to believe they might not keep that old number. Not as if CGC's policies on resubmissions are posted anywhere for me to review.

 

In any event, the basis for my question was clearly the difference of quality/vibrantness in the images. I made no suppositions as to why that might be other than to point that out and ask questions to solicit opinions.

[nochips]

Could be the differences in scan quality like you said, but that book looks like it's been cleaned to me.

 

Looking at the other results of the Hakes auction, it seems the final prices for everything was low. I imagine most did not meet the reserve prices.

 

If it has the same label number it's just a resub for a new label. Lots of people like the newer, easy to see, numbers on the label. If it was a resto job and resub it liley would have a new label number. If a guy cracked it out and sent it in for fresh new grading they would give it a new number, that's what they tell me.

[esquirecomics]

Could be the differences in scan quality like you said, but that book looks like it's been cleaned to me.

 

Looking at the other results of the Hakes auction, it seems the final prices for everything was low. I imagine most did not meet the reserve prices.

 

If it has the same label number it's just a resub for a new label. Lots of people like the newer, easy to see, numbers on the label. If it was a resto job and resub it liley would have a new label number. If a guy cracked it out and sent it in for fresh new grading they would give it a new number, that's what they tell me.

 

Fair enough. Then the Hakes scan is misleading. I have no opinion as to whether that is inadvertent or deliberate. I just know that it is misleading.

[nearmint]

If it has the same serial number, that would mean the label was submitted along with the book, so it wasn't a resub, but a cracked case.

 

Good catch, Dan. It does indeed look like the same serial #.

 

Good catch Dan? the original post said "However, it still bears the same serial #".

 

Guess I'm just surprised that Mark had to ask if the book had been worked on if he knew the serial number hadn't changed.

 

Why? That meant nothing to me. CGC has openly stated they want people to resubmit their books and have made changes to grades and PQ. If someone sent in the old label I have no reason to believe they might not keep that old number. Not as if CGC's policies on resubmissions are posted anywhere for me to review.

 

In any event, the basis for my question was clearly the difference of quality/vibrantness in the images. I made no suppositions as to why that might be other than to point that out and ask questions to solicit opinions.

 

I'm just saying, I'm surprised you're not aware of when CGC gives a new serial # and when they don't. Regardless of whether it's posted somewhere or not, I'm surprised you don't know.

 

Here's what bothers me about the title of this thread. Someone owns that book. The title of the thread calls into question whether the book has been worked on. If the basis of your question is the quality/brightness of the images, why not make that your title? I'm sure the book's new owner would appreciate it.

[esquirecomics]

If it has the same serial number, that would mean the label was submitted along with the book, so it wasn't a resub, but a cracked case.

 

Good catch, Dan. It does indeed look like the same serial #.

 

Good catch Dan? the original post said "However, it still bears the same serial #".

 

Guess I'm just surprised that Mark had to ask if the book had been worked on if he knew the serial number hadn't changed.

 

Why? That meant nothing to me. CGC has openly stated they want people to resubmit their books and have made changes to grades and PQ. If someone sent in the old label I have no reason to believe they might not keep that old number. Not as if CGC's policies on resubmissions are posted anywhere for me to review.

 

In any event, the basis for my question was clearly the difference of quality/vibrantness in the images. I made no suppositions as to why that might be other than to point that out and ask questions to solicit opinions.

 

I'm just saying, I'm surprised you're not aware of when CGC gives a new serial # and when they don't. Regardless of whether it's posted somewhere or not, I'm surprised you don't know.

 

Here's what bothers me about the title of this thread. Someone owns that book. The title of the thread calls into question whether the book has been worked on. If the basis of your question is the quality/brightness of the images, why not make that your title? I'm sure the book's new owner would appreciate it.

 

Jeff, I'm sorry I don't live up to your expectations as to the extent of my knowledge. I don't spend as much of my waking days on the CGC boards as you do. I'll try to do better next time so I don't bother you.

 

I think my title is fine. Feel free to continue to disagree. I do not know whether the book was worked on or not, or whether the scan was manipulated or not. One is true. Maybe both. The questions raised here are valid. I'll dust off all the defamation books I own to make sure I didn't say anything inappropriate.

 

Regardless of the answer, if I had purchased the book I would be quite annoyed (unless that $2,500 e-bay bid actually met reserve, then I wouldn't care as the book is worth twice that).

[nearmint]

Feel free to continue to disagree.

 

[lotemo]

If it has the same serial number, that would mean the label was submitted along with the book, so it wasn't a resub, but a cracked case.

 

Right, the book was never regraded. Just reholdered. But since I have been told repeatedly by knowledgeable people to look upon all high grade, new label slabs with skepticism, I choose to believe that it was cleaned and pressed anyway -- even though I see no actual evidence of that work being done.

 

As I said, it is unclear to me what took place. All I can say for a fact is that there was a label change and the scan image of the copy in the Hake's auction is NOT an accurate representation of the book when I owned it. The very LARGE scan I supplied above is EXACTLY how the book looked. And those two comparison images are, IMHO, extremely different.

 

Frankly, I am just as concerned if the scan image in any auction (or dealer website or ebay auction for the matter) has been manipulated to falsely convey a certain asethetic image that does not exist as I would be if the book has been cleared and pressed. The issue is one of disclosure, not of the method, treatement or event.

 

I would be quite annoyed if I purchased the copy from Hakes according to the scan and it arrived looking like the copy when I owned it.

 

You don't believe scans are manipulated? Look at nearly every scan in major auction houses. The colors are a little, shall we say, vibrant.

 

Of course I think scans are manipulated. This just happened to be one I caught.

 

It is not appropriate. Whether it is done is a different story.

 

I plan to contact Hakes and inquire about this.

 

Well, before you get all ornery, it could also have to do with the scanner. I've seen the scans that come off of your scanner, and they're dark. Different scanners have different lightness settings for the image - an Epson scanner, for example, will scan "brighter" than a Lexmark scanner, without any manipulation of the colors.

 

Yes, I do understand that. BUT, remember as I said above I always make sure that my scanned images accurately compare to the actual book. After I scan in a book,I sit with it right in front of me to make sure the final scanned image reflects the true image.

 

I'm not sure that it's possible to assure that a scan accurately represents the original comic book cover. Every monitor has different settings for brightness, contrast, etc. so just because the scan looks like the actual book on one monitor, it will look different somewhere else. I always compare it to seeing a store full of tv's all on the same program and the picture on each one looks different.

 

That's not to say that scans aren't brightened or altered but an overly bright scan on my computer may have looked like an accurate representation of the book on the computer of the person who scanned it.

[esquirecomics]

If it has the same serial number, that would mean the label was submitted along with the book, so it wasn't a resub, but a cracked case.

 

Right, the book was never regraded. Just reholdered. But since I have been told repeatedly by knowledgeable people to look upon all high grade, new label slabs with skepticism, I choose to believe that it was cleaned and pressed anyway -- even though I see no actual evidence of that work being done.

 

As I said, it is unclear to me what took place. All I can say for a fact is that there was a label change and the scan image of the copy in the Hake's auction is NOT an accurate representation of the book when I owned it. The very LARGE scan I supplied above is EXACTLY how the book looked. And those two comparison images are, IMHO, extremely different.

 

Frankly, I am just as concerned if the scan image in any auction (or dealer website or ebay auction for the matter) has been manipulated to falsely convey a certain asethetic image that does not exist as I would be if the book has been cleared and pressed. The issue is one of disclosure, not of the method, treatement or event.

 

I would be quite annoyed if I purchased the copy from Hakes according to the scan and it arrived looking like the copy when I owned it.

 

You don't believe scans are manipulated? Look at nearly every scan in major auction houses. The colors are a little, shall we say, vibrant.

 

Of course I think scans are manipulated. This just happened to be one I caught.

 

It is not appropriate. Whether it is done is a different story.

 

I plan to contact Hakes and inquire about this.

 

Well, before you get all ornery, it could also have to do with the scanner. I've seen the scans that come off of your scanner, and they're dark. Different scanners have different lightness settings for the image - an Epson scanner, for example, will scan "brighter" than a Lexmark scanner, without any manipulation of the colors.

 

Yes, I do understand that. BUT, remember as I said above I always make sure that my scanned images accurately compare to the actual book. After I scan in a book,I sit with it right in front of me to make sure the final scanned image reflects the true image.

 

I'm not sure that it's possible to assure that a scan accurately represents the original comic book cover. Every monitor has different settings for brightness, contrast, etc. so just because the scan looks like the actual book on one monitor, it will look different somewhere else. I always compare it to seeing a store full of tv's all on the same program and the picture on each one looks different.

 

That's not to say that scans aren't brightened or altered but an overly bright scan on my computer may have looked like an accurate representation of the book on the computer of the person who scanned it.

 

Excellent point, and something for us to consider. At last, someone gets us back on track and posts a substantive, contributive statement rather than complain or criticize.

[nearmint]

Yeah, that's me. Always complaining and criticizing.

[esquirecomics]

Yeah, that's me. Always complaining and criticizing.

 

Well, I didn't specify any particular person, but this actually is big news. See, we can agree.

[FFB]

If it has the same serial number, that would mean the label was submitted along with the book, so it wasn't a resub, but a cracked case.

 

Good catch, Dan. It does indeed look like the same serial #.

 

Good catch Dan? the original post said "However, it still bears the same serial #".

 

Guess I'm just surprised that Mark had to ask if the book had been worked on if he knew the serial number hadn't changed.

 

Why? That meant nothing to me. CGC has openly stated they want people to resubmit their books and have made changes to grades and PQ. If someone sent in the old label I have no reason to believe they might not keep that old number. Not as if CGC's policies on resubmissions are posted anywhere for me to review.

 

In any event, the basis for my question was clearly the difference of quality/vibrantness in the images. I made no suppositions as to why that might be other than to point that out and ask questions to solicit opinions.

 

I'm just saying, I'm surprised you're not aware of when CGC gives a new serial # and when they don't. Regardless of whether it's posted somewhere or not, I'm surprised you don't know.

 

Here's what bothers me about the title of this thread. Someone owns that book. The title of the thread calls into question whether the book has been worked on. If the basis of your question is the quality/brightness of the images, why not make that your title? I'm sure the book's new owner would appreciate it.

 

Sorry Jeff, but I am with Mark on this one. By which I mean to say that I am not the least bit surprised that he didn't know that.

[esquirecomics]

If it has the same serial number, that would mean the label was submitted along with the book, so it wasn't a resub, but a cracked case.

 

Good catch, Dan. It does indeed look like the same serial #.

 

Good catch Dan? the original post said "However, it still bears the same serial #".

 

Guess I'm just surprised that Mark had to ask if the book had been worked on if he knew the serial number hadn't changed.

 

Why? That meant nothing to me. CGC has openly stated they want people to resubmit their books and have made changes to grades and PQ. If someone sent in the old label I have no reason to believe they might not keep that old number. Not as if CGC's policies on resubmissions are posted anywhere for me to review.

 

In any event, the basis for my question was clearly the difference of quality/vibrantness in the images. I made no suppositions as to why that might be other than to point that out and ask questions to solicit opinions.

 

I'm just saying, I'm surprised you're not aware of when CGC gives a new serial # and when they don't. Regardless of whether it's posted somewhere or not, I'm surprised you don't know.

 

Here's what bothers me about the title of this thread. Someone owns that book. The title of the thread calls into question whether the book has been worked on. If the basis of your question is the quality/brightness of the images, why not make that your title? I'm sure the book's new owner would appreciate it.

 

Sorry Jeff, but I am with Mark on this one. By which I mean to say that I am not the least bit surprised that he didn't know that.

 

Geez Scott, you're slowing down. What took you so long to post your attacking non-substantive comment about me? C'mon, what else better would you have to do in your life?

 

By the way, of course I to your expertise on all that is, could be and should be comics. You are DA man, and the one we should all worship.

[FFB]

If it has the same serial number, that would mean the label was submitted along with the book, so it wasn't a resub, but a cracked case.

 

Good catch, Dan. It does indeed look like the same serial #.

 

Good catch Dan? the original post said "However, it still bears the same serial #".

 

Guess I'm just surprised that Mark had to ask if the book had been worked on if he knew the serial number hadn't changed.

 

Why? That meant nothing to me. CGC has openly stated they want people to resubmit their books and have made changes to grades and PQ. If someone sent in the old label I have no reason to believe they might not keep that old number. Not as if CGC's policies on resubmissions are posted anywhere for me to review.

 

In any event, the basis for my question was clearly the difference of quality/vibrantness in the images. I made no suppositions as to why that might be other than to point that out and ask questions to solicit opinions.

 

I'm just saying, I'm surprised you're not aware of when CGC gives a new serial # and when they don't. Regardless of whether it's posted somewhere or not, I'm surprised you don't know.

 

Here's what bothers me about the title of this thread. Someone owns that book. The title of the thread calls into question whether the book has been worked on. If the basis of your question is the quality/brightness of the images, why not make that your title? I'm sure the book's new owner would appreciate it.

 

Sorry Jeff, but I am with Mark on this one. By which I mean to say that I am not the least bit surprised that he didn't know that.

 

Geez Scott, you're slowing down. What took you so long to post your attacking non-substantive comment about me? C'mon, what else better would you have to do in your life?

 

By the way, of course I to your expertise on all that is, could be and should be comics. You are DA man, and the one we should all worship.

 

What can I say? I guess that unlike you, I am more inclined to say things to people to their faces, rather than behind their backs.