Was this Leading Comics (Rockford) Worked On?

[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.

 

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.

 

FFB, where have you been for so long Mr. All-Mighty!! I've been waiting for the Comic God to rein down on me for awhile now.

 

I know, I know. I'm sorry. I forgot that if ever you comment on something, I must clearly be wrong. I've said it before, and I again reiterate master -

 

I'll try and move on to some more important things that don't offend your principles and integrity.

 

[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.

 

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!

 

FFB, and Flying Donut, and Shield, and nochips, and Richard. Not that my position needs to be strengthened by anyone else.

 

And there's nothing about this that "I don't understand." I called your answer a cop-out because you were happy to argue with me until all of your points were either disproved or shown to be based on ignorance. Then, your only response is "well, I never agreed with you from the start, so why argue?"

 

That's a cop-out.

 

This thread ranks right up there with your pathetic "Where is Chris Friesen?" thread.

[The Black Hand ®]

Hey...you're all good guys...why not just agree to disagree and go look at some of the great comics Bangzoom has posted.