Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jaydogrules

  1. Those are amazing my friend. Awesome books ! -J.
  2. Lovin it so far. The Joker face punch was pretty epic too lol. Also cool to see the cover of the Bats 608RRP being used as the cover art for the DVD. -J.
  3. Actually, it doesn't. Not even close. And dropping it into a "universal holder" is the final slap on the face to any potential buyer who may not be as educated or knowledgeable about vintage comics as most of the people posting here. And the grade that it was assigned by Voldy? Please. Let's just say that a legitimately graded copy would have been more interested in disclosing the following... 1) "From a bound volume" 2) "Trimmed" 3) "Married, 'proof' cover" 4) "No manufacturing staples present" 5) "Non-manufacturing holes present through cover and all pages, affects story" 6) "Cover and all pages detached, attached with non-manufacturing staples" ...rather than the entirely superfluous, unknowable and made up information of who allegedly put this thing together 80 years ago. So yes- this is why somebody decided to pay Voldy to grade this and not CGC. -J.
  4. ....Which is why somebody paid Voldy to pretend to grade this book, and not CGC. -J.
  5. As I said before- the book is what it is and it's "value" is whatever somebody ultimately decides to pay for it. It is the slab that it sits in that's shameful and effectively worthless. -J.
  6. ...and now that I know this is in fact from a bound edition (and obviously trimmed), and was stapled together after it was pulled from it's original bindings, I am even more shocked and appalled by the joke grade and label that CBCS gave this book. But then again, that is basically why people use Voldy for books like this at this point. -J.
  7. I don't "hate" the book. It is what it is. I take exception with the misleading, dishonest slab somebody paid Voldy to put it in. -J.
  8. "After market"- was this book originally released without a cover ? No. This cover (not even a complete and accurate one) was added after the fact when somebody found it in a drawer somewhere. Also, I noticed you tap danced around the substance of my point (again). What exactly is Voldy grading as a "3.0"? The fake, aftermarket cover that was stapled on there by some guy who knows when ? Or the interior? Have you ever seen a coverless interior get anything higher than a 0.5? And do you think that books with fake, after market, non original covers should receive blue label grades? You're of course entitled to your opinion but I find it misleading and dishonest- another black eye for Voldy. -J.
  9. Except this isn't an ashcan. It is a coverless copy with a fake cover stapled to it after the fact to make it appear "complete" and was disingenuously graded as such in yet another black eye slab to Voldy. And sorry, I don't have time to do your due diligence with regards to Voldy's history of putting anything and everything in a blue slab in their desperate attempt to capture any meaningful marketshare (they still haven't and likely never will at this point). For those purposes I will simply refer you to either Google or these boards own search function. -J.
  10. "Fake cover"= Not an actual published cover but something else that somebody dug out of a drawer and stapled to a coverless copy after the fact to "create" a "complete" copy that Voldy was only too happy to "grade" as a "3.0". So what exactly about this book is a "3.0"? The fake, after market cover that was never part of the original book? Or are the coverless interiors supposed to be a "3.0"? And why is this graded as a straight "3.0" and not a qualified 3.0 by this company? Their grading policy and their labels have a well documented history of being on the sketchy side. That's why people specifically and routinely go to them with books like this. There, I said it. -J.
  11. That doesn't change the nature of the concern or the context of my point. And with Voldy's reputation of grading iffy books with iffy labels, the problem is only exaggerated. -J.
  12. Exactly. It is not a "3.0", "qualified", or otherwise. It's a coverless with a fake cover inside a worthless slab. It might be a $10k book. -J.
  13. Ugh. It's shameless grading atrocities like this is why Voldy is basically out of business. -J.
  14. Some truly lovely virgins indeed. -J.
  15. Great set! I think the OA for that wolverine cover was recently auctioned on comiclink. -J.
  16. Yes I actually did like shazam better than CM too, and mainly because it wasn't trying to be "something" other than what it just was. For its multiple flaws, It was perfectly fine being the little movie that it was, flaws and all. OTOH, as we have seen with Spider-verse and now shazam, critically/audience highly rated films do not necessarily translate to dollar signs at the box office, fair or not (and FWIW I liked shazam better than Spider-verse as well). -J.
  17. But is it? The "production budget" nowadays is usually only about half what studios spend worldwide on a tentpole, which this was supposed to be, so using only that to gage a film's actual performance is only telling you about half the story. Total all in budget and worldwide P&A per Deadline/Box office mojo- ~$200MM Total Worldwide Gross- $355MM Domestic- $135MM @ 50% = $68MM China- $44MM @ 25% = $11MM Other Countries- $176MM @ 40% = $70MM Total to Studio so far- $149MM Total Loss to Studio Right Now- (-)$51MM If this movie does end up around $365MM, yes, it can justifiably be called a flop, and no, i would not be holding my breath for any sequel or spin off movies any time soon, or ever. Undoubtedly after the unqualified financial success of Aquaman WB was expecting this to do at least $500MM. It was not meant to be. This movie was fine, completely forgettable, but fine. But it was also an overlong movie about an obscure character which failed to resonate with any audience worldwide, and at the end of the day fell victim to a pisspoor release schedule, market saturation, a truly terrible ad campaign, continuing WB incompetence, in addition to audience apathy. -J.
  18. Carnage 5 (2010), first Scorn, looking pretty toasty... https://www.ebay.com/itm/Carnage-5-2011-CGC-Graded-9-8-Doctor-Tanis-Nieves-Becomes-Scorn-Wells-Story/312587733592?hash=item48c7ae4a58:g:yQ0AAOSwSxhcxL55 -J.
  19. A yellow label 9.6 just sold for $15.1k tonight. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Incredible-Hulk-1962-1st-Series-181-CGC-9-6-1st-full-WOLVERINE-sign-3-Legends/264302214973 -J.
  20. That's sweet. Always nice to have a little bit of Dell'otto OA too. -J.
  21. Very nice. Looks sweet in that slab! -J.