Putting a distressed repro cover on a book seems shady... 0

[miraclemet]

I don't know the seller, and they may have not been the person to put the cover on this one of Fantastic 3 (in fact my assumption is someone else did, sold it as original and the new owner is unfortunately trying to recoup losses after submitting it and getting the bad news)

 

Why else if you were putting a repro cover on would someone choose a worn repro image, and distress it?

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1939-FOX-FEATURES-FANTASTIC-COMICS-3-CLASSIC-LOU-FINE-ROBOT-COVER-CGC-0-5-OW-W-/162626154791?hash=item25dd463127:g:fnsAAOSw7cVZjKoP

 

 

[miraclemet]

Full book showing the aging/distress on bottom

[telerites]

He has this for sale on Ebay as a BIN - don't recall the asking price though.  Considering it is slabbed and clearly labeled as a repro cover, if the seller had the resto done, I wouldn't think he was trying to deceive by then sending to CGC.  Perhaps someone else or perhaps just wanted to the cover to match the feel of the contents.

What got me more was the wrong back cover.  If you are going to repro the front, why not the correct back as well?  Seems like a dumb thing to do to stick the wrong back cover of the book.  Wonder what book the back came from - if it is even period of the Fantastic.

[lpsunburst]

I was wondering the same thing but one possible answer is that the repro is an image of a worn book, hard to tell one way or the other without seeing it in hand.

[Johnny545]

It's a bizzare listing on a lot of levels.  

[Mmehdy]

E-Bay...no wonder

[porcupine48]

dodgy

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 11/08/2017 at 5:45 PM, telerites said:

He has this for sale on Ebay as a BIN - don't recall the asking price though.  Considering it is slabbed and clearly labeled as a repro cover, if the seller had the resto done, I wouldn't think he was trying to deceive by then sending to CGC.  Perhaps someone else or perhaps just wanted to the cover to match the feel of the contents.

What got me more was the wrong back cover.  If you are going to repro the front, why not the correct back as well?  Seems like a dumb thing to do to stick the wrong back cover of the book.  Wonder what book the back came from - if it is even period of the Fantastic.

As far as I am aware, that is the correct back cover for this issue. 

[telerites]

42 minutes ago, Grantley Goddard said:

As far as I am aware, that is the correct back cover for this issue. 

I was going by the CGC label note saying wrong back cover.  Maybe it was mislabeled.   

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

10 hours ago, telerites said:

I was going by the CGC label note saying wrong back cover.  Maybe it was mislabeled.   

I agree, I think either it's a straight up CGC error OR they mean it doesn't match the front cover? But if that is the case why not say MARRIED BACK COVER? Either way, I'm pretty sure that is the correct back cover. perhaps someone with a copy could confirm? 

[HRCostigan]

Maybe the interior of the back cover is not a match?

[telerites]

8 minutes ago, Grantley Goddard said:

I agree, I think either it's a straight up CGC error OR they mean it doesn't match the front cover? But if that is the case why not say MARRIED BACK COVER? Either way, I'm pretty sure that is the correct back cover. perhaps someone with a copy could confirm? 

 

5 minutes ago, HRCostigan said:

Maybe the interior of the back cover is not a match?

That is what I was thinking on the interior of the back.  From the DCM, the back cover doers appear correct but looking at the tape on the slabbed copy, maybe married like Paul suggested.  Here are the scans from the DCM - 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

This label is a story in its own right. What and where is the color touch? My point is that if it is a color photocopy, why even mention the color touch because we already know it's a photocopy. Or is the color touch inside the book? I'm confused.

[G.A.tor]

3 hours ago, Grantley Goddard said:

This label is a story in its own right. What and where is the color touch? My point is that if it is a color photocopy, why even mention the color touch because we already know it's a photocopy. Or is the color touch inside the book? I'm confused.

The back cover is wrong on the interior, hence wrong bc

color touch likely on the pages 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

7 minutes ago, G.A.tor said:

The back cover is wrong on the interior, hence wrong bc

How do you know? There appears to be no picture posted on the auction page or are you assuming this must be the case, or do you have some insider info?

[G.A.tor]

14 minutes ago, Grantley Goddard said:

How do you know? There appears to be no picture posted on the auction page or are you assuming this must be the case, or do you have some insider info?

I'm "familiar" with the copy

[G.A.tor]

There are also 2 fc interior variations too, in case anyone was curious. 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

57 minutes ago, G.A.tor said:

I'm "familiar" with the copy

Good enough 

[fett]

several different images of the back cover for slabbed copies of this book on Heritage show Dept 507A Detroit Michigan at the bottom ad, whereas the ebay copy shows only Dept 507.  I didn't check any further into the back cover ads. 

[sacentaur]

10 hours ago, telerites said:

 

That is what I was thinking on the interior of the back.  From the DCM, the back cover doers appear correct but looking at the tape on the slabbed copy, maybe married like Paul suggested.  Here are the scans from the DCM - 

My copy, the Larson, has the coupon clipped out but otherwise is exactly the same as these two images.