**AGH**, My Bat #1 came back PURPLE, but I was able to trade it in for this....

[Silver Surfer]

I specifically acquired them for a particular customer who is not a member of these board. The sale also included a VF+ white paged Detective #1.

 

S

 

Good God man,

where do you find these books?

 

Came from a California collection. Wow. Those were nice books.

 

S

 

Did a board member purchase them? Love to see scans of these books.

[SuperBird]

read your own post, mate

[Silver Surfer]

read your own post, mate

 

Yeah but Stephen resold them yesterday?

[Primetime]

Primetime, out of curiousity, why get it slabbed?

 

well, up until he got it graded, he thought that he had an UNrestored 2.0 copy, now he knows what the book really was,.. I get all my GA slabbed for the same reason, because, I don't want to find out 2, 5, 10 years down the line that I bought what I thought was an UNrestored book, only to find out otherwise..

 

I don't send much to CGC anymore, but if I had a Batman #1 I probably would. For a high dollar book like that, having it graded (a) adds value, (b) becomes more liquid, © and like thedude says you get peace of mind that the book you think is unrestored, actually is.

 

Yep. And that's why I sent it in...I should have done it earlier but I wanted to enjoy it some more before it entered a plastic tomb....

[Primetime]

but it's obvious that the covers were reattached to the comic. Primetime must have been aware of that. Therefore, he knew something was 'up'.

 

maybe he thought the cover was held on by magic..

 

Primetime, did you think that Bat #1 had had work done to it ??

 

At the point of sale, I was only told it was a 2.0 unrestored and came out of a bound volume. I would not have purchased the book had I known what is confirmed now as CGC truth--ie, tear seals (not the two tears sealed by tape on the inside BC, but, rather, the 4-6 tear seals Chris Friesen (sp?) of CGC told me he detected on the cover.

[SuperBird]

tear seals (not the two tears sealed by tape on the inside BC, but, rather, the 4-6 tear seals Chris Friesen (sp?) of CGC told me he detected on the cover.

 

[thedude]

but it's obvious that the covers were reattached to the comic. Primetime must have been aware of that. Therefore, he knew something was 'up'.

 

maybe he thought the cover was held on by magic..

 

Primetime, did you think that Bat #1 had had work done to it ??

 

At the point of sale, I was only told it was a 2.0 unrestored and came out of a bound volume. I would not have purchased the book had I known what is confirmed now as CGC truth--ie, tear seals (not the two tears sealed by tape on the inside BC, but, rather, the 4-6 tear seals Chris Friesen (sp?) of CGC told me he detected on the cover.

 

thanks for clearing that up...

[dizzyfoxx]

 

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Great Tec#33

 

 

George

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

You should have see the Killer Detective #33 we sold yesterday. At least a VF. One of the best Det #33 I've seen. About the same grade as the Detective #35 that went along with it.

 

Steve

 

How come the #35 never appeared on the website (it was on my wantlist)?

 

Probably couldn't afford it anyway

 

You sold me my FN- unrestored #33 (plus #6 - 11, 14, 15, 17, 21, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 44).

 

I have a feeling I know where the #33 and #35 are heading (wonder whether he will post them on the boards)

 

I don't see a 29 on your list.

[Ze-man]

 

At the point of sale, I was only told it was a 2.0 unrestored and came out of a bound volume. I would not have purchased the book had I known what is confirmed now as CGC truth--ie, tear seals (not the two tears sealed by tape on the inside BC, but, rather, the 4-6 tear seals Chris Friesen (sp?) of CGC told me he detected on the cover.

 

Hey Ben, I think since they flat out missed the tear seals on the FC Metro should have just asked you how you would like to be compensated rather then sticking to their normal exchange only policy, imho.

 

Are you also out the CGC grading fees, and shipping costs it took to return the book to them?

 

I hope they at least cut you a good deal on your Tec #33.

 

Kenny

[1koko]

those are the comics I have bought over time from Metro not the ones missing - a #29 is on my wantlist

[Primetime]

<I could not get my $$ refunded to me>

 

Why was your $$ not refunded if you bought it as unrestored???

 

It was past the 30 day policy..i thought an exception could be made being this is a seven thousand dollar book with tear seals, but a full credit was issued and used as an option.

 

Anyhow, I think after all the dust is settled, you did damn good with that Tec 33.

 

Oh, by the way, I once owned a Tec 33 in CGC Universal 4.5 (different copy) but I don't own it anymore... Now I really miss it! Thanks a lot!!!

 

And I miss my MM9 CGC 3.0

[Primetime]

<I could not get my $$ refunded to me>

 

Why was your $$ not refunded if you bought it as unrestored???

 

Anyhow, I think after all the dust is settled, you did damn good with that Tec 33.

 

Oh, by the way, I once owned a Tec 33 in CGC Universal 4.5 (different copy) but I don't own it anymore... Now I really miss it! Thanks a lot!!!

 

It was past 30 days. This being a $7,000 book with tear seals, I thought an exception was appropriate, but a credit was issued and used as my only option...

[Primetime]

That Batman #1 was graded a 2.0 by Metro ?

 

Pretty thrashed for even that grade.

 

yah, even Borock was surprised

[Primetime]

Yeah, where did you exchange it? Are they reselling the comic? That'd be about the only Batman #1 I could ever afford.

 

Metropolis has it...yah, I think they are reselling it but it's not on their website yet...it's a decent low grade Bat 1---if you don't mind the glue..

 

Yes, The book was taken from a bound volume. Hence the glue at the spine. CGC said the book had tear seals on the back. Sealed with paper tape. Somehow tears with paper tape do not equate to tear seals. If that were true, then every book that has tears with scotch tape should also be labeled as restored.

 

S

 

Chris Freisen told me he spotted 4-6 tear seals on the FC that were independant of the taped seals on the inside BC...

[Primetime]

That Batman #1 was graded a 2.0 by Metro ?

 

Pretty thrashed for even that grade.

 

The book is quite solid with nice paper. Grading the book as a fair seems bizarre. I can spot a fair from a million miles away. This book is not a fair.

 

S

 

yes, the paper is nice on the interior. Borock said they down graded cuz the spine was shot and re-attached...

[Primetime]

So, uh, what's a CGC 1.0 Restored Batman #1 run these days?

 

a CGC 1.0(A) with worse eye appeal than this copy went for $3400 on C-link last year...that same copy went for $3,000 on eBay last week...I'd say this copy is worth $4,000-$5,000 tops....

[Primetime]

 

If the spine were largely intact the amount of dirt and other tears on the book would likely limit the grade to 2.0, with about half the spine not just split but apparently missing 1.0 seems a less bizarre grade than 2.0. I could see being generous and giving it a 1.5 if the paper quality is nice, but I don't think anyone would call this a straight GD if it wasn't a key. Still it's not like its problems aren't clearly visible, so it's one of those books where a number grade (and label color IMHO) is largely immaterial - and props to Metro for giving credit on it over a year later - many sellers wouldn't.

 

If you bought this as an unrestored 2.0 and it came back a 1.0 PLOD, would you be ticked? I mean it's a MAJOR key that was sold by a (the) MAJOR dealer as an unrestored copy. Glue on the spine is restoration - I'm not sure I'm in the same camp as those of you high-five-ing Metropolis on this particular transaction. Sure it's good form to offer credit back for the book, but if it was part of a bound volume they had to know it'd come back purple if submitted to CGC. This is leaving the tear seals completely out of the picture.

 

I mean back in 2001 I had a really nice book with a very small amount of glue on a staple that was a PLOD - glue equaling restoration isn't something new in CGC land.

 

Unless I'm completely wrong and the item was listed or discussed as "Unrestored from a bound volume with glue on the spine"....if so, I apologize for insinuating otherwise.

 

Primetime - did you know it was from a bound volume / had glue on the spine before you submitted it? It kind of looks obvious from the top of the spine down to the top staple.

 

Shawn

 

I was told it came from a bound volume and it was a 2.0 unrestored. Had I known the tear seals were present I would not have purchased the book.

[agro23]

So, uh, what's a CGC 1.0 Restored Batman #1 run these days?

 

a CGC 1.0(A) with worse eye appeal than this copy went for $3400 on C-link last year...that same copy went for $3,000 on eBay last week...I'd say this copy is worth $4,000-$5,000 tops....

Sounds like a restoration candidate if the paper is nice.

[Shield]

 

If the spine were largely intact the amount of dirt and other tears on the book would likely limit the grade to 2.0, with about half the spine not just split but apparently missing 1.0 seems a less bizarre grade than 2.0. I could see being generous and giving it a 1.5 if the paper quality is nice, but I don't think anyone would call this a straight GD if it wasn't a key. Still it's not like its problems aren't clearly visible, so it's one of those books where a number grade (and label color IMHO) is largely immaterial - and props to Metro for giving credit on it over a year later - many sellers wouldn't.

 

If you bought this as an unrestored 2.0 and it came back a 1.0 PLOD, would you be ticked? I mean it's a MAJOR key that was sold by a (the) MAJOR dealer as an unrestored copy. Glue on the spine is restoration - I'm not sure I'm in the same camp as those of you high-five-ing Metropolis on this particular transaction. Sure it's good form to offer credit back for the book, but if it was part of a bound volume they had to know it'd come back purple if submitted to CGC. This is leaving the tear seals completely out of the picture.

 

I mean back in 2001 I had a really nice book with a very small amount of glue on a staple that was a PLOD - glue equaling restoration isn't something new in CGC land.

 

Unless I'm completely wrong and the item was listed or discussed as "Unrestored from a bound volume with glue on the spine"....if so, I apologize for insinuating otherwise.

 

Primetime - did you know it was from a bound volume / had glue on the spine before you submitted it? It kind of looks obvious from the top of the spine down to the top staple.

 

Shawn

 

I was told it came from a bound volume and it was a 2.0 unrestored. Had I known the tear seals were present I would not have purchased the book.

 

Did you know there was glue on the spine either before or after you purchased the book? You are aware that even without the tear seals the glue automatically put this book in the PLOD category.

 

Just curious - why didn't you get it CGC'd sooner?

[metropoliscomics]

but it's obvious that the covers were reattached to the comic. Primetime must have been aware of that. Therefore, he knew something was 'up'.

 

maybe he thought the cover was held on by magic..

 

Primetime, did you think that Bat #1 had had work done to it ??

 

At the point of sale, I was only told it was a 2.0 unrestored and came out of a bound volume. I would not have purchased the book had I known what is confirmed now as CGC truth--ie, tear seals (not the two tears sealed by tape on the inside BC, but, rather, the 4-6 tear seals Chris Friesen (sp?) of CGC told me he detected on the cover.

 

 

Nope. Talked to Chris. It was the paper tape seals.

 

S