• 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. I looked at the same original description and said "It's wrong. Just wrong." But -- I was concerned that if the conventional wisdom was wrong when I bought it, then it might stay wrong as long as I owned it and not be corrected until after I'd resold it (whenever that might be), when some new owner got it corrected. I don't follow art nearly as close as others do, so I am surprised when I see things listed at auction with crucial information missing or incorrect. Several silver age spidey pieces, which I tend to follow more than others, have shown up and sold for less than I would have bid had I known information that was not in the original listing. Like the ASM 97 listing which doesn't mention that all the stats have drawings underneath them, not just the one area that has an obvious stat over art. I find it odd that someone would own something like that and never investigate, leaving it for a wily dealer to discover.
  2. Yeah. If I was the consignor I would've insisted on it being mentioned. I see that they did correct the original attributions to Don Heck. It struck me as possible but unlikely and no slight meant to Heck but I didn't see any signs of him in the piece and didn't fully understand why anybody would've thought so in the first place.
  3. I was hoping the Marvel Tales cover would go under the radar and not many bidders would recognize the Spider-man figures as one of the most often used images in Spidey merchandising.
  4. There's more comics fans in Russia than you might think, but less then there should be, considering how popular the MCU is there.
  5. The chew pattern makes me think it could be from the "rat-a-tat" pedigree. Story has it a kitchen rat loved the way comics tasted but he also loved the art and story so he would only chew in the margins.
  6. It looks as if Hitler is admiring V-Man's junk.
  7. No question. It's impossible to disagree with that. My feeling has been that the label color focus makes things less transparent. How many labels have you seen in which the color of the label and the words on the label are exactly identical, yet you know that there is actually an enormous difference between what was "done" to one book as opposed to the other. And you know that one book looked pretty damm decent before the "work" (nearly the same as it looks post-resto at arm's length) while another was so destroyed and degraded that in its original state you could barely make out the figures on the cover. I totally get the idea behind wanting to put the latter book in a label that somehow conveys to the buyer "this book didn't look anything like this before it was restored and the cover might as well be called a 'painting'") But the problem is that rather than trying to identify the massively restored-you-would-never-have-bought-this-in-its-original-state books with a massive "don't buy this" label, we've ended up applying the same dammnation color coding to all sorts of books based not on what amount of alterations have occurred but based on what somebody thinks was going through the mind of the person who caused the alterations (or defects).
  8. Re: the "color label focused world", I don't disagree it exists but I respectfully diverge from the notion that CGC should and must reinforce the color label focus, especially not if doing so means misusing words, going against common sense and embracing any abuses which result (I know you didn't advocate for the particulars in that underlined parenthetical, but they are, in fact, results of label color focus (or "obsession"?). Any efforts made to mitigate the underlined consequences is, in my view, a well-intentioned effort. And not just despite the possibility it will thus require people to read words more carefully. In fact, I would call that a good thing.
  9. The terms "restored" and "conserved" are both consistent with the dictionary definitions and common usage for describing what was done. If the use of one of them as an "umbrella" term meant the word "married" was then omitted from the description, then I would agree it's misleading. I know some people complain about consistency but IMV if the words describing what was done and what it is are all there, and the "umbrella" term is not being used inconsistent with its dictionary definition, then there's no harm, unless some people want the "umbrella" term to carry some harsher implication that reflects their opinion about whether the book should have been, as they say, "manipulated" in that manner. And once you go in that direction there's always somebody who will not happy with how far you've gone. Some already feel it's not enough to say "married" unless you add the words "from another copy" and some feel that's not enough, either, that the umbrella term for the book must be understood to mean "good" or "bad". I've even heard it opined that some labels should imply or even say outright something like "color touched (and they shouldn't have done that!" or even "Buyer beware: this isn't worth much".
  10. FYI here's a pic of the first page, which is one of those I kept. You can see the weathered edges and residual tape. It was even worse on the last pages, indicating this was coverless for years before it was taped and that many years elapsed after it was taped and trimmed. The white areas on all the pages had essentially the same level of whiteness (off white or so)
  11. These look like pages I once had. The odd cut of that one page is something I remember. While some inner pages were nicer than others I don't think any of the pages were unusually "bright white" and I am sure if they had been it would've given me pause. I've had other "loose page" key stories and found it pretty easy to tell fakes from the real thing. Not sure if the picture makes them seem better than they are but I don't think if you saw them all together, as I had, you would've thought those pages were better to a strange degree. The pages were all essentially solid but some on the outside were chipped and brittle at the edges, mostly, from what I could tell, due to the glue from tape residue. I've seen many books over the years with old scotch tape on them, so I know when the tape has had decades to degrade to the point you could remove it easily without removing paper, and I saw the same on the pages from this book.
  12. I actually had those in the past from a near complete coverless book obtained from an old time collector who seemed legit and had bought them several decades prior. Remnants of ancient scotch tape were on some edges but easily peeled off. Some outer pages had brittleness and inner pages seemed slightly better. Obviously the FFE pages are larger. There was a smaller sized reprint maybe 15 years ago but the paper is different. It felt and feels clear to me these are real but I can understand if somebody, even a grader, isn't sure at first.