• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About bluechip

  • Boards Title
    FACT if I stop posting, trillions and trillions of transistors would be out of work.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Still have them. Still thinking of selling; just undecided about best way to do that.
  2. People keep describing page 2 as first image of Batman but he's there, albeit in silhouette right in the title panel.
  3. Heritage auctions Sunday and others recently have been selling mid double-digit Archies for significant multiples of guide.
  4. I can only guess but it seems clear that either some influential people on the inside, or some influential customers putting pressure on them, are willing to accept the misuse of the term. But when the purple label is used on books that are not restored but, simply, disapproved, it invalidates the assertion that the purple label is not employed to make people avoid books. And it leads to valuations that actually incentivize people to tear up books that have gotten a purple label through misuse of a term, or which are not quite complete. Imagine if you will the same thing happening with the valuation of classic cars, and you found a hundred year old classic missing only a few bolts, but putting them on the car would make it shunned, so you're better off taking the whole thing apart and selling the wheels, the doors, the steering column, etc. piece by piece, only to be sold as separate items, because that is approved, while completing a car, even with original parts, is not.
  5. Realized prices vary widely, so there is no wrong answer. It is wrong, however, to call them "restored" because they just... are. not. restored. It is wrong and silly to use the word "restored" for any-book-which-had-something-done-to-it-that-some-people-don't-approve of. I've heard defense of that approach by graders who say graders "don't have many options", which means, basically, that they want to label a book as being "desecrated" but, since there isn't a "desecration label" what the hey just say it's restored because casual investors have been conditioned to think a purple label means the book is non-existent so anything we call restored will be shunned by casual investors looking for simple guidelines. Thus, "restored" can be used when what you'd like to say is "I don't approve what I believe somebody was thinking when this book got damaged" or even "I hate so much that people trimmed books books to make them look better that I will call anything restored if it's trimmed in any way for any reason." Those books were bound, and damaged in the process, even "desecrated", if you like. But until Webster's says otherwise, they simply were. not. restored.
  6. Several cut panels from that strip showed up some years ago, and the story (unconfirmed) was that the group of panels, or the entire strip, was gifted to the original inspiration for Charlie Brown (classmate of Schulz) who then gifted panels to others, including the woman who inspired Frieda.
  7. There was a significant find of uncirculated copies of ASM 33. Not sure how many but more than enough to exceed the usually expected number of uber high grade copies.
  8. It's one thing when people "loudly express their disdain" or, for that matter, when people "spit on" something. I can even hold my tongue when I see people referring to the number of "universal" or "blue" books and it's clear they're trying hard to establish a conventional norm that if it ain't blue it doesn't actually exist. (never mind that they're including books which are poor and even incomplete while excluding ones that are as much as near mint except for an archive paper seal). At least then it's their opinion which is being expressed and while the chosen words can be misleading, they're not trying (at least not openly) to force others to follow their criteria. What I cannot abide, though, is the insistence that if the book is something they "spit on" that the label must express their disdain and spit on the book. Some insist on labels that spit on books, even if it requires using inconsistent or misleading color-coding and/or using words in a way that is contrary to their actual meaning. And, further demanding that anybody who owns a book they would spit on must be required to put their book in a holder with the "spit-on-it" label.
  9. Some good points. I am fine with people not liking what they don't like, but some people react with unbridled rage when they see that other people don't share their opinion, and behave almost as if they think it's just well nigh impossible that somebody could actually like something they don't, so it MUST be that they don't understand things fully. They must have been conned. Put that attitude together with the very heavily promoted notion that "only blue will do" and you get some of extremely weird results we've been seeing, like people paying more for incomplete books than for books that have been completed with married parts.
  10. Establishing the "one-off" qualities of a book, when those qualities have been duly proven, is one of the most useful things a verification company can do. By doing so CGC earns the name of not just a grading company but a certification company. "Certification" implies much more to me than an assessment of the structural integrity of a book. It also implies that it's real and that anything which is significant (and provable) will be noted, whether it means something to all potential collectors, or a smaller number of them. The intensity of some collectors can make doing that difficult, as some will insist on using criteria that reflects their views but doesn't necessarily make sense to others. Hence we get bound volumes being called "restored" because they are trimmed, not because they are actually restored by any dictionary definition of the word but because some people trim books to make corners sharper and most people hate that, with some hating it so much they'll abide the complete misuse of the term "restored" to include books trimmed for any reason. And, hence, we get people railing against the certification of "one-offs" like the estate/office hand-bound copy of Marvel 1, even when they don't question the essential facts being included on the label. It is the job of "certification" to look beyond the extreme views and say what they know a thing is, or isn't, allowing collectors to decide on their own whether they like it, but not allowing them to dictate that labels should tell others what should be liked and what shouldn't.
  11. I have come to regard blue pencil as a desirable thing, giving an insight into the artist's process. With Romita's work even more so because he worked so often with other artists who did black pencils over his blue and then someone else did the inks. The telltale blue lets you know how much he had a hand in it.
  12. Many times I would've said that the prices on many things -- from sports and rock and roll memorabilia, to vintage cars and fine art-- can't possibly keep increasing. Only to see people pay not just tens of thousands but hundreds of thousands for a guitar used once in a concert. And people paying not just millions or tens of millions but over a hundred million for a piece of art.
  13. Like many others here, I've spoken with Dave about the books he owns and he clearly enjoys having them. Once you have enough money to meet your basic needs, what you do with the excess should be determined by how much you enjoy it and not so much on whether you could make a bit more cash, because what good is more cash except to meet more needs and do more things you enjoy?
  14. I think for a long time t seemed scarcer than it was due to it being a stealth key, not many people looking for it and lots of people having it without realizing what it was.
  15. This would present a better picture if it included the restored copies. No matter what some people may think of them, a book doesn't cease to exist once it has been color touched. Poor condition books are included in the tally, so even if every restored book were assumed to be poor, it would still affect the tally. I see people offering poor condition copies touting them as one of only 68 (or whatever) "universal" copies, which seems to imply that restored books -- which may have always been in much better than poor condition (like by virtue of being complete copies) but have maybe a tear seal or some color touch -- are somehow so much worse that they should be considered virtually non-existent?!