Is this correct to be in a blue holder? 0

[telerites]

?

[DjMartini]

51 minutes ago, telerites said:

?

 

I feel like sending this back in might be a good idea to be given the correct holder.

I am assuming a mistake was made somewhere???

[telerites]

3 minutes ago, DjMartini said:

I feel like sending this back in might be a good idea to be given the correct holder.

I am assuming a mistake was made somewhere???

This is not my book.  I just saw it and it has a long while since I messed with SS so thought something had changed on unwitnessed cover sigs.  

 

[DjMartini]

5 minutes ago, telerites said:

This is not my book.  I just saw it and it has a long while since I messed with SS so thought something had changed on unwitnessed cover sigs.  

 

Gotcha. Well, I don't believe that this book has the correct holder and/or in the right category. Unless something has changed that I am not aware of. Hopefully someone with more knowledge or a CGC employee can comment. But as it is not your book, I guess whosever book this is, got a book with a rare mistake. 

[telerites]

4 minutes ago, DjMartini said:

Gotcha. Well, I don't believe that this book has the correct holder and/or in the right category. Unless something has changed that I am not aware of. Hopefully someone with more knowledge or a CGC employee can comment. But as it is not your book, I guess whosever book this is, got a book with a rare mistake. 

 Used to be a GLOD which I think it still should be.  Assume it is a QC error.

[somewhereintexas]

Lower grade books with sigs can get a blue label, because the "defect" doesn't really affect the grade.  That being said, even on a higher grade book you can request a blue label and the signature is treated as a defect and the book graded accordingly.

[thesink]

Its an un-witnessed sig either it gets a blue label and the sig is treated as a defect or it gets a green label and the sig doesn't hurt the grade. Looks like it was graded as the sig being a defect. I guess don't quite understand the problem.

[seanfingh]

This book is fine in a blue holder.  The unwitnessed sig is a defect and does not affect the beater nature of the already 2.0 book.

[telerites]

1 hour ago, seanfingh said:

This book is fine in a blue holder.  The unwitnessed sig is a defect and does not affect the beater nature of the already 2.0 book.

Sean Thanks, I should have known that.  And thanks too all who posted.

[Catwomancomics]

That’s a nice looking Stan Lee sig.

[comic girl]

I agree that the sig looks authentic, based on books that I have with his sig. just FYI, CBCS will now have a category and different colour label for an authenticated, but not witnessed signature. This book might benefit from a switch to CBCS. It would likely still be a 2.0 but with the added value of an authenticated Stan lee signature, which holds some decent value all on its own nowadays.

[seanfingh]

[Jeffro.]

17 hours ago, comic girl said:

I agree that the sig looks authentic, based on books that I have with his sig. just FYI, CBCS will now have a category and different colour label for an authenticated, but not witnessed signature. This book might benefit from a switch to CBCS. It would likely still be a 2.0 but with the added value of an authenticated Stan lee signature, which holds some decent value all on its own nowadays.

And if you send it to them you might get it back by 2020  

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, Jerkfro said:

19 hours ago, comic girl said:

I agree that the sig looks authentic, based on books that I have with his sig. just FYI, CBCS will now have a category and different colour label for an authenticated, but not witnessed signature. This book might benefit from a switch to CBCS. It would likely still be a 2.0 but with the added value of an authenticated Stan lee signature, which holds some decent value all on its own nowadays.

And if you send it to them you might get it back by 2020  

Whatever you do, don't ask for a status update. They'll ban you.