Pantodude

closed

Iron Man and Sub-Mariner #1 (Marvel, 1968) CGC 9.2 OW/W

closed

no longer available

closed

closed

closed

Rules: NO Probation List or Hall of Shame members, or other unsavory sorts! "I'll take it" in a thread will trump any negotiations in PM, emails, etc. Payment: PayPal, check or money order, please. Will ship after payment clears. Shipping: $15.00 USD for first slab and $5 each slab after that (3 slab max in a box) via USPS to continental USA. Return Policy: No returns on CGC graded books. closed

FWIW, I can tell you from experience that, at least for several years (beyond that, it was before my experience), GPAnalysis has been promptly removing sales data (after being tipped off of the need) whenever they could confirm the sale had not gone through. Be it eBay, Heritage, etc. You know all those times in all those threads over the past few years when folks have noted a sale (usually involving expensive keys) that apparently fell through, boardies often flagged those situations for GPA either directly in the thread or by contacting it outside of the boards, and GPA acted. As its response in this thread is consistent with this longstanding practice, I don't see how GPA could be seen as compromised. Anyway, I appreciate GPA even more in light of the actual and potential shenanigans addressed in this thread.

If the books were graded at different value tiers and/or involved books varying greatly in grade and from different Ages (GA vs SA vs BA), it would be a head scratcher to receive 4 books back and they all lacked the grader's notes, at least to me. That is because in such a scenario, you would expect different graders to be involved, and they differ in the extent to which they provide notes, if at all. I'm guessing you submitted several books that were more similar than not and perhaps graded by the same person. my

CGC says: ReHolder A comic book in a CGC holder is encapsulated in a new CGC holder. The grade assigned to the book should not change, unless any damage occurred post-encapsulation, in which case the grade will be adjusted accordingly. To qualify, the book must still be encapsulated in its original CGC holder. https://www.cgccomics.com/submit/services-fees/cgc-grading/

This...was...not...supposed...to...happen.

347 pages! A seemingly unstoppable force of nature! We'll see about 350 before the holiday weekend hits. This immovable object oughta take care of it, paradox be damned!

Should we put this in perspective?. CGC stepping up and eventually listing the implicated cert#s is a good step forward. Hopefully the perpetrator was the only high-volume perp of this kind. But even if not, the shenanigans discussed in this thread generally concerned uber high-end BA, CA and modern books for which prior sales data reliably suggested a large discrepancy in the valuation between two versions of a book in same grade (here $14K difference for a 9.8 N/S vs 9.8N/S w/ MJ insert), and books with a huge disparity in valuation in the 9.2-9.6 range and 9.8 grade. These are more recent books with a relatively large number of uber grades on the census to make discovery of suspicious books impractical. That is important here--a large census of, say, 9.8s (to be replaced by a lower-grade MJ or newsstand version on a reholder) that made it easier for the fraudster to get away with something like this because of the sheer volume of data/scans for comparison required to weed out suspicious re-subs/reholders. That leaves huge swaths--the vast, vast majority actually--of BA, CA and modern books that would not have been implicated in these particular schemes, or at least not to this extent, which is good, right? And it should be additional consolation that most of the really expensive books in the hobby are/were more immune to these shenanigans. The relative scarcity of GA (including PCH), Victorian and Platinum Ages, early SA, and the Marvel price variants of the '60s, '70s, '80s (UK, Can, Aus and experimental price variants, e.g., 35c, etc) should have immunized them. For such books, presumably it would have taken too long to find a lower grade book with a comparable cover (appearance and grade-wise), with or without missing interior pages/wraps, for this to have happened to any significant degree for practical profit. Just finding a GA or Marvel price variant in a given grade could take months/years, so good luck with finding yet another book with a cover that appears to be the same grade, let alone with the right mix of defects matching the cert# used by a fraudulent seller for the switch. Big GA and SA books also seem to be scrutinized more than books from other Ages, with big sales often noted/discussed on these boards and elsewhere, with images to fawn over to boot. And many of the big-boy GA and early SA books and price variants were sold previously on Heritage or ComicConnect or ComicLink (as most pricey/significant comics seem to be, to this day), so potential buyers of these books will often have high-quality scans available on GPA or the sales venues themselves (and even in many threads on these boards) for double-checking the image associated with the cert#. While perps could have included small, non-dealer individuals, and their shenanigans could have extended to even mid-grade but still expensive books from any Age, presumably they would have been too infrequent to have been significant. With the limited resources of such low-volume sellers and/or CGC submitters, such activity would have been pricier and riskier for them compared to dealers who could hide behind their volume, especially before CGC became overwhelmed during the pandemic. So the impact on cert integrity by such misbehaving individuals could be minimal. Anyway, here's hoping to a new year with more to cheer than frown about.

BTW, if not already mentioned, the eBay seller of the 15.7K ASM 252 9.8 NS/MJ [i.e., Comic Selects aka Briva3] has no books offered for sale at this time. I thought someone had recently posted a snapshot showing some of the many books he was selling. Maybe preserve that snapshot? Just maybe.

Get well soon! You and yours are in my thoughts.

Bump

Bump

Late to this party. Boy this thread took a couple of detours to this point! Interesting stuff. But going back to the OP's topic, just wanted to chime in regarding Bugs Bunny and the original Looney Tunes in general (i'm referring to the 1940s/1950s fare) as an exception. I generally moved on to superheros as I became a teenager, like most, but Bugs Bunny never took a back seat to anyone, even as I got older. As a young'n, I spent my Saturday mornings watching Bugs, Elmer, Daffy, etc., and it was very good fun. I (and thankfully, my mom) was oblivious to the fact that it was meant for more mature (or just mature!|) audiences. It's like the PCH and war comics that should never have been accessible to children (but thank goodness they were!). Hard to believe that Elmer Fudd used a gun for soooo long (only removed relatively recently), unless you appreciate that the intended audience was actually adults from day one. I came across this interesting article: https://www.deseret.com/entertainment/2020/6/12/21287067/hbo-max-looney-tunes-elmer-fudd-gun-violence#:~:text=The original 'Looney Tunes',were absolutely made for adults.” Here's an excerpt: The book ”Reading the Rabbit: Explorations in Warner Bros. Animation,” by Kevin S. Sandler, explains that creator Tex Avery said he “leaned more toward the adult audience.” And animator Chuck Jones said the cartoons “were absolutely made for adults.” So those 1940s “Looney Tunes” shorts that aired? They “were absolutely not for children,” said Kyra Hunting, an assistant professor of media and arts studies at the University of Kentucky. Mature or not, those cartoons were also very clever and often accompanied by great music. Rossini's Barber of Seville overture, Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries, Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2, the list goes on and on. Perhaps not surprising because I was so young, but I honestly don't recall listening to classical music before Bugs Bunny! Watching those cartoons, especially as a child, was a loaded (excuse the pun) experience. Unavoidably memorable, in a good way. Many collectors gravitate toward comic book versions of things they like (Star Trek #1 (Gold Key 1967) and Scooby Doo #1 (Gold Key, 3/1970) have been gaining traction for years now). So I'm not surprised at the pretty penny commanded by Bugs Bunny's first comic book appearance in Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies Comics #1 (Dell Publishing, 1941) due to nostalgia and/or the enduring appeal of the high-quality, mature enterainment. Bugs remains popular is the point. A cartoon character need not have many dimensions to have the staying power of superheroes or human characters among a maturing audience, just the right dimensions (however few, yeah, here's looking at you Scooby Doo!) done well. But, in the Looney Tunes family, that might apply more to Elmer Fudd and Daffy Duck than to Bugs. Arguably, Bugs was at least as sophisticated as any cartoon portrayal of a superhero or human character, with all the seemingly endless role-playing and cross-dressing we saw with Bugs! One thing's for sure: however many dimensions Bugs did have in those classic shorts, they were done exquisitely well. All that said, Peanuts #1 (United Features Syndicate, 1953) is another cartoon comic book that has done just fine (i.e., it's a pricey book), but this time without mature content. And I mentioned Scooby Doo #1. So for the good stuff, nostalgia alone and/or appreciation of historical significance could maintain a book's popularity across generations without being superhero-related.

[edit] Did you see the whole video? [had to watch it again in case I missed something] It's actually the complete opposite. He's going all-in on his comic book business and selling his PC (turns out not all, just most) to fund the business during these leaner times.

Wow. Again, Robin overlooked. This time Batman #1. Robin is significant enough to have his third appearance noted in Batman 1, too. The Bat1 label currently notes "Hugo Strange appearance. Batman & Robin pin-up on back cover," so before those mentions? Or instead of either of those if space is an issue?

Detective Comics #39 should mention it is the 2nd-ever appearance of Robin ( Grayson).

Surprised to see that Detective Comics #38 says "Origin & 1st appearance of Robin, ( Grayson)., 3rd 'A DC Publication' logo." But no mention of "First superhero sidekick" (or something along those lines) which should come between those two. Batman having a sidekick was an innovation that took the whole GA by storm, so a big deal!

You guys are just joking, right (pun intended)? Because Tec40 is the first joker cover, and there's no doubt about it, as recognized by third-party graders, Overstreet, big auction houses like Heritage, and anyone who read Bat 1 (on-sale date April 24, 1940) followed by Tec40 (on-sale date May 3, 1940) just nine (9!) days later (they were essentially on the newsstand simultaneously). Easy enough to demonstrate using the covers and panels in the pertinent books (Bat1, Tec40) themselves. One should place himself at the time Bat 1 and Tec 40 were issued. If you do, it is clear that -- regardless of the story contained within Tec40 -- it was the Joker, and could only be interpreted as the Joker, on the cover when Tec 40 came out, especially considering how the Joker had looked up until THAT point (pre-Tec62, Bat11, Tec69,etc). The evidence is in Bat 1 itself. Here is the key scene from Bat1: In case it is not clear WHO that is chopping away at the pole, it's the Joker. After readers digested the above key scene, they were treated to THIS preview of Tec40 on the last page of Bat1 itself: Having seen that pole-chopping scene in Bat 1, followed immediately by that ad in the same Bat 1, readers could only have construed Tec40's cover to depict the Joker: So in real time, back in the day, upon reading the key book Bat 1, readers could only have construed the axe-wielding figure on Tec40 as the Joker. And just to be clear, the Tec40 cover's Joker does look very much like the Joker as drawn in Bat1 panels, when the Joker was still less colorfully drawn. Look at Bat1 page 7 front: And Bat1 page 7 rear: You can see Tec40 cover's Joker had the same hat, coat, and vest, and even the same ribbon-like tie, but sans the gloves, as in Bat1. Even had a similar pale face, although in Bat1 it was whiter. Joker's turned face in the key scene on the roof in Bat1 has no makeup! Just like in Tec40's cover, where the Joker also has his face turned while on the roof with no makeup. If you want to say that in Tec 62, the Joker looked more like he did post-Tec40, that's fine. That's true. All good. And that is why I LOVE Tec62's cover, balloons and all. But in Tec62, he looks different than in his intro book Bat1 and intro cover Tec40: A great cover. But the Joker on the Tec40 cover looked more like the Joker in the Bat1 panels than the Joker on the Tec62 cover. Unless my eyes are failing me, which is possible. Anyway, that how it played out historically. So Tec40 is the Joker's 1st cover appearance. Both Tec40's and Tec62's covers are awesome in their own right. And they are both also essential because they show the evolution of Joker's appearance.