Another re-sub up again on CLINK

[batman_fan]

Just saw this 8.5 Adventure 60 and looked at Heritage to see if it had sold before. Looks like the previous off-white to white is now white.

 

CLINK Adventure 60

 

Heritage Adventure 60

 

And was it previously a 7.5 but with the pencil arrival removed?

 

Heritage Previous 7.5

 

Correct me if I am wrong

[nearmint]

The cut of that copy gives it away. Looks like the yellow area around the bottom staple was cleaned up.

[sacentaur]

Well, isn't this interesting (good obs, bat_fan)...

 

That is the same book. I held it in my hands late last year when Dave "thebigloo" Anderson tried to sell it to me (8.5) for $3,000. The curving tear under the price is a dead giveaway.

 

When I rec'd the book, I immediately could tell something was wrong. I thought the book had been monkeyed with (the cover sparkled and looked reglossed, and a possible tear seal), so I sent it back.

 

Later, when Dave and I had a spat the Adventure 60 came up again. It went back to CGC who walked it through and I was assured that it was unrestored "in any way". Since Dave had given me a discount on another book (Larson Flash) in the same deal, I voluntarily sent him a check for $250 to make up the discount difference, and he cashed it.

 

So my instincts were correct after all - this book has been obviously manipulated.

 

I wonder if Dave will return my $250?

 

STEVE

[FFB]

Well, isn't this interesting (good obs, bat_fan)...

 

That is the same book. I held it in my hands late last year when Dave "thebigloo" Anderson tried to sell it to me (8.5) for $3,000. The curving tear under the price is a dead giveaway.

 

When I rec'd the book, I immediately could tell something was wrong. I thought the book had been monkeyed with (the cover sparkled and looked reglossed, and a possible tear seal), so I sent it back.

 

Later, when Dave and I had a spat the Adventure 60 came up again. It went back to CGC who walked it through and I was assured that it was unrestored "in any way". Since Dave had given me a discount on another book (Larson Flash) in the same deal, I voluntarily sent him a check for $250 to make up the discount difference, and he cashed it.

 

So my instincts were correct after all - this book has been obviously manipulated.

 

I wonder if Dave will return my $250?

 

STEVE

 

Your instincts were that the book had been reglossed and had a possible tear seal. The book was dry cleaned and pressed. I don't know that I'd call your instincts "correct."

[sacentaur]

No, my instincts were that the book was manipulated - I just couldn't put my finger on it.

 

I'm willing to wager the sparkle on the book (it was like pixie dust) has something to do with it. It was so weird - that's why I thought reglossed, but it now seems to be some kind of cleaning agent or residue.

 

 

STEVE

[lou_fine]

It went back to CGC who walked it through and I was assured that it was unrestored "in any way".

 

Steve;

 

Well, from CGC's definition of restoration, they would actually be speaking the truth here since they consider dry-cleaning and pressing as non-restoration activities.

 

They fall under the umbrella of "maximizing the potential" in a book and is not considered to be restoration "in any way, shape, or form".

[FFB]

No, my instincts were that the book was manipulated - I just couldn't put my finger on it.

 

I'm willing to wager the sparkle on the book (it was like pixie dust) has something to do with it. It was so weird - that's why I thought reglossed, but it now seems to be some kind of cleaning agent or residue.

 

 

STEVE

 

What kind of cleaning agent or residue do you think it was?

[sacentaur]

I never used the term "dry cleaning". There is some type of residue on the book - I can't describe it, you just have to see it - and my understanding is that this would qualify as restored ("cover cleaned").

 

STEVE

[sacentaur]

What kind of cleaning agent or residue do you think it was?

 

No idea, Scott - I have never seen a book sparkle under a light like that.

 

This *spoon* has to stop...Greed Merchants are going to ruin this hobby.

 

STEVE

[batman_fan]

Well, isn't this interesting (good obs, bat_fan)...

 

That is the same book. I held it in my hands late last year when Dave "thebigloo" Anderson tried to sell it to me (8.5) for $3,000. The curving tear under the price is a dead giveaway.

 

When I rec'd the book, I immediately could tell something was wrong. I thought the book had been monkeyed with (the cover sparkled and looked reglossed, and a possible tear seal), so I sent it back.

 

Later, when Dave and I had a spat the Adventure 60 came up again. It went back to CGC who walked it through and I was assured that it was unrestored "in any way". Since Dave had given me a discount on another book (Larson Flash) in the same deal, I voluntarily sent him a check for $250 to make up the discount difference, and he cashed it.

 

So my instincts were correct after all - this book has been obviously manipulated.

 

I wonder if Dave will return my $250?

 

STEVE

 

Your instincts were that the book had been reglossed and had a possible tear seal. The book was dry cleaned and pressed. I don't know that I'd call your instincts "correct."

 

What exactly makes you think it was pressed? Looking at the 7.5 scan and the 8.5 scan I can't really see anything that indicates it has been pressed.

[FFB]

Well, isn't this interesting (good obs, bat_fan)...

 

That is the same book. I held it in my hands late last year when Dave "thebigloo" Anderson tried to sell it to me (8.5) for $3,000. The curving tear under the price is a dead giveaway.

 

When I rec'd the book, I immediately could tell something was wrong. I thought the book had been monkeyed with (the cover sparkled and looked reglossed, and a possible tear seal), so I sent it back.

 

Later, when Dave and I had a spat the Adventure 60 came up again. It went back to CGC who walked it through and I was assured that it was unrestored "in any way". Since Dave had given me a discount on another book (Larson Flash) in the same deal, I voluntarily sent him a check for $250 to make up the discount difference, and he cashed it.

 

So my instincts were correct after all - this book has been obviously manipulated.

 

I wonder if Dave will return my $250?

 

STEVE

 

Your instincts were that the book had been reglossed and had a possible tear seal. The book was dry cleaned and pressed. I don't know that I'd call your instincts "correct."

 

What exactly makes you think it was pressed? Looking at the 7.5 scan and the 8.5 scan I can't really see anything that indicates it has been pressed.

 

Vee haff our vays of tellink eet vas presst!

 

Seriously though, the upper right corner of the front cover looks to have had a delaminated layer that was folded back into place (it looks like a chip on the Heritage copy, but it's not actually a chip because you can see the next layer of the cover stock underneath the layer with the ink on it, which is folded back against itself). I consider any kind of "pressure" being added to a comic book in order to minimize a defect to be "pressing," whether a dry mount press is used or not.

 

But leaving aside pressing or theories about magic pixie dust, the jump in grade appears mainly to have been from the dry cleaning of the superficial soiling/dust shadows from the edges of the book.

[MasterChief]

Good research, bat_fan... you've pieced together this book's certification and resale provenance.

 

No doubt about it... Purchased in December 2002, aesthetically manipulated (erasure/cleaning), re-certified, and then sold 4 months later for a 125% profit.

 

Is it odd that it was given a 3rd certification number? Looks to be a straight re-sub... and based on Steve's story it is, as the copy was only re-examined by CGC for restoration.

 

I image you found this in preparation of the Link's upcoming action. Are you interested in the issue and looking to purchase a copy, thus the due diligence?

 

In any event, the population census for this issue is inaccurate. The 2nd and 3rd certification numbers are searchable:

 

7.5 = 0055949001 (zeroed out)

8.5 = 0064485008 (searchable)

8.5 = 0788922001 (searchable)

[agro23]

You can propose that this book has been cleaned, pressed and resubbed all day long but what are you trying to do?

 

Do you want to educate people and engage collectors in a dialogue to ultimately change what CGC calls restoration? Or do you simply want to punish the comic's current owner (whether or not they themselves did or didn't do the "manipulation") because they seem to have gamed the system?

 

Can anyone prove this is the same comic? How? And even if you can, until CGC considers cleaning and pressing restoration what are you accomplishing?

[rodan57]

"Punish" the current owner = inform the potential buyer.

 

Dennis

[Harvey Dude]

Just saw this 8.5 Adventure 60 and looked at Heritage to see if it had sold before. Looks like the previous off-white to white is now white.

 

Hey Batman Fan, I greatly appreciate it when these issues are brought to light. I believe it is very important that prospective buyers know the history of a book so informed decisions can be made as to the true worth of the comic to the collector. As the old saying goes, knowledge is power.

[OldGuy]

Do you want to educate people and engage collectors in a dialogue to ultimately change what CGC calls restoration? Or do you simply want to punish the comic's current owner (whether or not they themselves did or didn't do the "manipulation") because they seem to have gamed the system?

 

Yes, on both counts.

[metropoliscomics]

a more extreme example of a 8.0 going to a 9.2

[agro23]

Do you want to educate people and engage collectors in a dialogue to ultimately change what CGC calls restoration? Or do you simply want to punish the comic's current owner (whether or not they themselves did or didn't do the "manipulation") because they seem to have gamed the system?

 

Yes, on both counts.

Doesn't this screw the current owner if they didn't know there was something done to it and tattling on the book scares away a buyer? How's that help? Especially if the claim can't be proven (unlike in the metro case where he was owner of the book the first go round).

[stagedoorjohnny]

Doesn't this screw the current owner if they didn't know there was something done to it and tattling on the book scares away a buyer? How's that help? Especially if the claim can't be proven (unlike in the metro case where he was owner of the book the first go round).

 

Unfortunately it does. However, the only way to prevent this from happening in the future is to make sure one does not and cannot profit from this. If there's no money to be made, hopefully it will stop. And the only way to do that is to inform the marketplace. It's a minefield out there for buyers, caveat emptor.

[bluechip]

Doesn't this screw the current owner if they didn't know there was something done to it and tattling on the book scares away a buyer? How's that help? Especially if the claim can't be proven (unlike in the metro case where he was owner of the book the first go round).

 

Unfortunately it does. However, the only way to prevent this from happening in the future is to make sure one does not and cannot profit from this. If there's no money to be made, hopefully it will stop. And the only way to do that is to inform the marketplace. It's a minefield out there for buyers, caveat emptor.

 

 

 

Y'know, I am theoretically behind any efforts to unveil that a book once looked to be a 7.5 and is now an 8.5

 

That's pure info and all pure info should be available.

 

But I could get behind the agenda it in a much more open and practical way if it didn't seem that outrage about misleading info is uniqely pitted against anything a person wants to call restoration.

 

I think the info goes from pure to impure when people say their goal is to make sure nobody profits from pressing and cleaning a book, yet they say it would not be enough to disclose the info; the seller must also call it resto, must "agree" it's bad, must put it in a "bad" label.

 

No need to point out that nobody has said any of the above, at least not specifically, in this thread. But when I hear complaints about people "gaiming the system" I can't help but be reminded how the system is being gamed in so many other way

 

Look at the guy who posted a reteling of how he sent a captain america 1 get slabbed and it came back as "restored" because the center pages had been trimmed. Calling that a copy with trimmed center pages is pure info. Calling it a "restored:" cipty is impure info because it's very misleading. Especially to any novice buyer who would see the label and presume the "restoration" to the book had made it appear better,not worse.

 

Or look at the Action 1 sold in heritage. Experts on this board had all the info on the label, as well as a chance to look very carefully at the book. And yet they could not frigure out what precisely had been done to it.

 

Regarding that book, the system failed the seller as well as potential buyers.

 

If the winning bidder knew something about the book (like that it looked prettry decent before resto) and is able to use that to their advantage, then they too will have gamed the system.

 

Likewise, do people game the system when they buy a slight restored knowig they can have the resto removed? Do they game the system when they sell high grade common books to people who don't realize they're common? Do they game the system when they "punish" a book and the value of their own books accrue by comparison?

 

Maybe all of those examples amount to gaming the system. And maybe all fall under the heading of buyer (and seller) beware.

 

But when people are doing what is sanctioned by the same company (CGC) that indirectly facilitates the other types of gaming, why is one and only form of ganing targeted with an openly expressed desire to "punish the owner"?

 

(which, by the way, is not me)

 

IMO, anybody who games the system in one way shouldn't be too quick to condemn another who games it in a different way. And, IMO, if they don't gane the system in any way, then they should not reserve their condemnation for one and only one form of gaming.