• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Is it open season for CGC to grade any magazine?
2 2

107 posts in this topic

:bump:

Sports Illustrated and Playboy?  Is that really all you are doing CGC?  The limited options seem a little arbitrary/weird.  The fact that the census/gpa show that so many other mag titles are being slabbed when a signature series is attached seems odd also.  Message being sent by CGC being we have enough expertise to confidently grade your various magazine titles only if a signature is attached? Does anyone know if CGC knocks the grade on the magazines they do slab if the insert subscription cards are missing?

From CGC's website.

"While the list of magazine titles eligible for certification by CGC Magazines will be expanded, CGC presently accepts submissions of only the following magazines:

Sports Illustrated – All issues August 16, 1954, to present
Playboy – All issues December 1953 to present"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ThothAmon said:

:bump:

Sports Illustrated and Playboy?  Is that really all you are doing CGC?  The limited options seem a little arbitrary/weird.  The fact that the census/gpa show that so many other mag titles are being slabbed when a signature series is attached seems odd also.  Message being sent by CGC being we have enough expertise to confidently grade your various magazine titles only if a signature is attached? Does anyone know if CGC knocks the grade on the magazines they do slab if the insert subscription cards are missing?

From CGC's website.

"While the list of magazine titles eligible for certification by CGC Magazines will be expanded, CGC presently accepts submissions of only the following magazines:

Sports Illustrated – All issues August 16, 1954, to present
Playboy – All issues December 1953 to present"

 

You would think that National Lampoon would be on that list...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Randall Dowling said:

You would think that National Lampoon would be on that list...

CGC will grade National Lampoon. More confusion, but it seems that if the magazine is comic related they will grade it. Think Famous Monsters. I have a beautiful set of Creem magazines that would look great in slabs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2020 at 8:31 PM, ThothAmon said:

CGC will grade National Lampoon. More confusion, but it seems that if the magazine is comic related they will grade it. Think Famous Monsters. I have a beautiful set of Creem magazines that would look great in slabs. 

Sports Illustrated  and Playboy isn't exactly comic related though, so why those?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2019 at 12:51 AM, lou_fine said:

The one I simply can't understand is Eerie Magazine #1 by Warren Publishing???  ???

All of the other issues show up in their population census report.  Yet nothing at all for the first issue or was it something to do with the high possibility of counterfeit copies.  If this is the case, then shouldn't this also apply to other books like Cerebus #1 which is also prone to having counterfeit copies out there.  hm  (shrug)

Sorry I didn't see this post until now. I do remember the conversation around certifying the Eerie #1 and it did involve the head people at CGC at the time (around 2004, if memory serves). As I recall, the main issue was not only that it's difficult to find a genuine first printing, but also the fact that the information about the book is shrouded in mystery. 

Since the Cerebus #1 has been thoroughly scrutinized by CGC graders, there are extensive notes concerning what the differences are between the counterfeit edition and an authentic first printing. At the time of the initial conversation around the Eerie #1, the only real official information available was in the Overstreet price guide, and even that was (and is) subject to a certain amount of skepticism. So the idea of encapsulating the Eerie #1 was dismissed due to the difficulty and potential backlash surrounding it. In other words, CGC didn't want to take a chance on certifying a counterfeit as genuine, or vice-versa. 

I see it as a missed opportunity, but I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2019 at 12:10 PM, Randall Dowling said:

The issues with Eerie 1 are pretty well known.  Even the most experienced dealers won’t say they can detect a first printing with certainty.  Having spoken with many of the “old guys” that have been buying and selling for 40-50 years, I won’t pursue the book.  Eerie 2 is the first magazine in the run and I don’t consider Eerie 1 a magazine.  2c

I assume you've talked with Nerv about this? He's very knowledgeable...   (thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Lions Den said:

I assume you've talked with Nerv about this? He's very knowledgeable...   (thumbsu

Yes, we have.  Brett feels pretty confident that he has the criteria to tell and he may be correct.  However, the problem that I've stated is that no one that was actually there at time of printing is available to give criteria for verification.  And the statements by Jim Warren in interviews, ads, and other venues are inconsistent.  Add to that the fact that the production quality being so low, it is perhaps, one of the easiest pieces of ephemera to counterfeit.

Too much confusion.  I don't find it worth the trouble and I would personally never feel comfortable stating that a copy is 100% legitimate.  Therefore, I consider it to be not  a Warren magazine.  It may be an ashcan or some other production related artifact.  But it's not a magazine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Randall Dowling said:

Yes, we have.  Brett feels pretty confident that he has the criteria to tell and he may be correct.  However, the problem that I've stated is that no one that was actually there at time of printing is available to give criteria for verification.  And the statements by Jim Warren in interviews, ads, and other venues are inconsistent.  Add to that the fact that the production quality being so low, it is perhaps, one of the easiest pieces of ephemera to counterfeit.

Too much confusion.  I don't find it worth the trouble and I would personally never feel comfortable stating that a copy is 100% legitimate.  Therefore, I consider it to be not  a Warren magazine.  It may be an ashcan or some other production related artifact.  But it's not a magazine.

I agree 100%.

I've seen a few copies of it over the years and to be honest, I don't really have any desire to add one to my collection...especially for the prices that people are asking for it.   :screwy:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, The Lions Den said:

I agree 100%.

I've seen a few copies of it over the years and to be honest, I don't really have any desire to add one to my collection...especially for the prices that people are asking for it.   :screwy:

 

If I didn't know the origin and pedigree of the one I own I wouldn't want to take a chance on an Eerie 1 ashcan either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2