How can THIS be a good idea??? 1 1

[Old_Man_Adam]

13 hours ago, Wally's Comics said:

Slabbing a book that that has a photo copy of that book is one thing...

 But slabbing a book that has a photocopy of a different book???

Ebay is allowing too much deception by taking a “neutral stand “ on things , I understand how the world works and how it ultimately is on the buyer to do their due diligence and read the fine print ..” if it’s too good to be true “...than it damn sure is 

[Bookery]

14 hours ago, James J Johnson said:

The label pretty much says it all. It clearly identifies exactly what it is. I would imagine that the only way you could be deceived by this and mistake it for an original, complete, 1963 issued AS #1 is if you have little to no hobby experience and are illiterate, yet by some means happen to have thousands of dollars of disposable cash to spend despite being illiterate.

I don't think it's likely someone will mistake this for "an original, complete, 1963 issued AS #1".  The "NG" grade should take care of that.  I think it's possible one might think they were getting a coverless ASM #1 with a photo-copy copy.  The difference between a coverless #1, and a valueless coverless MT is enormous.  Yes... it says what issue it is on the label... but since this appears to be the only entity of this kind we are aware of, it's not something someone would expect... especially if they hit the Buy It Now quickly.

[obiedagod]

why is it $500....

[Red84]

27 minutes ago, obiedagod said:

why is it $500....

Because it's my opinion that the seller is hoping the buyer won't notice what is actually for sale and think it's an ASM 1 for a steal.

[James J Johnson]

15 minutes ago, Red84 said:

Because it's my opinion that the seller is hoping the buyer won't notice what is actually for sale and think it's an ASM 1 for a steal.

$500 is just another outlandishly ambitious, ridiculous price set by an ebay seller, much like one ebay seller's modern age Stan Lee signed CGC signature books priced in the $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 range.

IMO, if the $500 price is a dead-giveaway that this is not a real AS #1 and something far else, requiring taking a closer look, even if at first glance someone was miraculously fooled. You can't even touch a coverless complete AS 1 for $500. I think that the $500 is even more of a deterrent for fraud than incentive.

At the very least, soon we'll know if he reads this forum, and his exact intentions if he suddenly raises his ask from $500 to a slightly more believable $5000 to complete an attempted deception, if that is the case...

Edited March 7, 2019 by James J Johnson

[bc]

17 minutes ago, Red84 said:

Because it's my opinion that the seller is hoping the buyer won't notice what is actually for sale and think it's an ASM 1 for a steal.

I believe this is likely the reason they would even have paid to ship and slab this combination of pieces.

BUT, why not use a #1 from one of the 1000 different Spider-man titles to throw your ASM 1 photocopy over? That way the label is even more scamtastic.

[Wally's Comics]

This kind of makes me wonder what is going to be next...

A color copy over a John Byrne ASM 1 from 1999?

[F For Fake]

12 hours ago, Tony S said:

I'm with Lazyboy on this. The book is an NG. NO GRADE. The label clearly states what the person is actually buying. So CGC has done it's job here. A buyer knows they are purchasing a Marvel Tales 138 with a color photocopy of the cover of ASM 1.  Anyone that buys the book believing they are getting something other than what is clearly stated on the label is woefully ignorant, inattentive & SOL. 

Sure, but the fact remains that CGC shouldn't have ever slabbed this, because there's no REASON to slab this other than to trick someone into thinking it's something it's not. And looking at the other listings confirms that the dealer is terribly negligent at best, or, more likely, fishing for insufficiently_thoughtful_persons. CGC shouldn't be aiding in that.

[bentbryan]

On 3/6/2019 at 12:59 PM, jcjames said:

 

The grade reflects the damage to the book. 

 

 

 

 

 

Shouldn’t that be a purple label tho?

[Tony S]

15 minutes ago, F For Fake said:

Sure, but the fact remains that CGC shouldn't have ever slabbed this, because there's no REASON to slab this other than to trick someone into thinking it's something it's not. And looking at the other listings confirms that the dealer is terribly negligent at best, or, more likely, fishing for insufficiently_thoughtful_persons. CGC shouldn't be aiding in that.

This is the same argument advanced that CGC should not  encapsulate counterfeit books. And that's what this book really is -- a rather pathetic and primitive attempt at a counterfeiter copy of ASM 1. As as serious collector of comic books since 1967, I'm not buying the argument that CGC should not encapsulate books like this.  In fact I believe just the opposite. They SHOULD encapsulate such books - and the hobby is better off for their doing so.  

The warts and sketchy side of comics is just as important a part of the hobby as the stuff more...dignified.   BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY - CGC's encapsulation and CLEAR DESCRIPTION of this book makes fraud LESS LIKELY. Not more.  A person with limited knowledge of comic books might fall for a reproduction  ASM 1 cover attached to a Marvel Tales 138 being sold raw. They might believe they are purchasing an ASM 1.  But once CGC encapsulates the book and clearly describes what it is, the ONLY PEOPLE FOOLED ARE THOSE TOO IGNORANT TO READ. 

So no. I and others maintain CGC has done a GOOD THING - provided a VALUABLE SERVICE - in encapsulating and describing this book. 

Edited March 7, 2019 by Tony S

[Red84]

43 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

$500 is just another outlandishly ambitious, ridiculous price set by an ebay seller, much like one ebay seller's modern age Stan Lee signed CGC signature books priced in the $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 range.

IMO, if the $500 price is a dead-giveaway that this is not a real AS #1 and something far else, requiring taking a closer look, even if at first glance someone was miraculously fooled. You can't even touch a coverless complete AS 1 for $500. I think that the $500 is even more of a deterrent for fraud than incentive.

At the very least, soon we'll know if he reads this forum, and his exact intentions if he suddenly raises his ask from $500 to a slightly more believable $5000 to complete an attempted deception, if that is the case...

To me this is not "just another outlandishly ambitious, ridiculous price set by an eBay seller" because the book, in no uncertain terms, is worth a dollar. Someone (not necessarily the seller here) went to the trouble to take a coverless Marvel Tales (I wonder if it was coverless or if the person who submitted specifically removed the cover in order to add the photocopy) with no value, printed a photocopy of ASM 1, attached the pieces together, and mailed it in for slabbing. 

That's a whole lot of effort for something worth a dollar at most. Makes you wonder about the motivation.  

[Tony S]

4 minutes ago, Red84 said:

To me this is not "just another outlandishly ambitious, ridiculous price set by an eBay seller" because the book, in no uncertain terms, is worth a dollar. Someone (not necessarily the seller here) went to the trouble to take a coverless Marvel Tales (I wonder if it was coverless or if the person who submitted specifically removed the cover in order to add the photocopy) with no value, printed a photocopy of ASM 1, attached the pieces together, and mailed it in for slabbing. 

That's a whole lot of effort for something worth a dollar at most. Makes you wonder about the motivation.  

If the motivation was true, outright fraud by trying to fool someone into believing they were purchasing an ASM 1 - the book would have been sold raw.  Now that it is encapsulated and fully described, fraud is harder. Should be impossible, unless the next purchaser cannot read. 

We don't know if the person that sent it into CGC is the same person that created it. So we can't know the motivation. If for instance the same person that created this book is the one that sent it in, maybe they are trying to create something of value from things of much less value.  In the world of POP vinyl figures, there are people and stores "making" collector editions by switching parts, painting on fake blood, stuff like that. If someone bought this book raw believing it was an authentic ASM 1, then they had a huge disappointment when the book came back from CGC. But the person buying the book next knows what it really is. 

[mattn792]

If fraud is the under lying motivation in this listing, I think dude should go all out:

"CGC NG explained - CGC reserves the NG grade for only the most stellar books on the market, those that are so pristine they don't fit on the traditional 10 point scale.  This copy could potentially be worth millions to the lucky buyer, but I'm forced to let it go at what will likely be a substantial loss because my truck ran away with my barber and I need money to repair my wife's broken rear axle.  My loss is your gain!"

[drbanner]

On 3/6/2019 at 1:08 PM, bc said:

Nice description "Cgc 1amazing spiderman marvel tales 138 book looks mint " It should look mint - it's a photocopy of a cover.

 

He should've said it looks NM-, would've been more realistic that way. 

[jcjames]

1 hour ago, bentbryan said:

Shouldn’t that be a purple label tho?

I THINK that one can request universal (unqualified) grade/label for a restored book when it is submitted. It would get heavily downgraded  (as this one was) and have the resto listed, but not be in tagged with the PLOD. 

 

Others with more accurate knowledge of restored grade options can chime in here. 

 

[mackenzie999]

Seems very PGX to me...

[Cliff R.]

In 2017, I saw an Ebay auction for a coverless ASM #1.  The listing had plenty of photos, and I knew it wasn't an original by looking at the splash page. The coloring looked odd. The pics of the inside pages showed ad pages with "FACSIMILE ADVERTISEMENTS. NO LONGER VALID" clearly marked. I messaged the seller and told him it was a reprint.  He never replied back and the book sold for over a hundred bucks.  This seller dealt in antiques, not comics. 

Ebay link

4 bidders bid on this. I believe it was a coverless Marvel Tales 138.  Maybe the winning bidder had a repro cover put on and slabbed the book? 

Edited March 7, 2019 by Cliff R.
added info

[James J Johnson]

2 hours ago, mackenzie999 said:

Seems very PGX to me...

I can't possibly equate this to any PGX fiasco that we've identified and discussed.. CGC has clearly, concisely, and responsibly identified precisely what this is, and CGC's analysis of the book therein is lucidly explained in no uncertain terms, printed front and center, right on the label. And IMO, the $500 price tag for an AS 1 is even a bigger sign than the label notes are that this is not an original, 1963 issued, AS 1.

[bc]

35 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

I can't possibly equate this to any PGX fiasco that we've identified and discussed.. CGC has clearly, concisely, and responsibly identified precisely what this is, and CGC's analysis of the book therein is lucidly explained in no uncertain terms, printed front and center, right on the label. And IMO, the $500 price tag for an AS 1 is even a bigger sign than the label notes are that this is not an original, 1963 issued, AS 1.

Barring why CGC would even slab this frankenbook - why would the price be anymore than $50 if this was an honest sale? This person has too many "odd" listings to be simply dismissed as being ignorant of the current grading and pricing in comics and how to exploit it.

Didn't you (rightfully by the way) question all the fake Stan Lee sig series books? This is another pretty blatant attempt to misrepresent something of value to an unsuspecting buyer. WE can all see that's its a super fake, but the potential to sour a potential new hobbyist should not be ignored.

[James J Johnson]

15 minutes ago, bc said:

Barring why CGC would even slab this frankenbook - why would the price be anymore than $50 if this was an honest sale? This person has too many "odd" listings to be simply dismissed as being ignorant of the current grading and pricing in comics and how to exploit it.

Didn't you (rightfully by the way) question all the fake Stan Lee sig series books? This is another pretty blatant attempt to misrepresent something of value to an unsuspecting buyer. WE can all see that's its a super fake, but the potential to sour a potential new hobbyist should not be ignored.

But, as far as I understood it, the question here is about "why CGC would slab it?", and the gist of the question relating to how much of a mistake it might be for them to do so because of the potential for fraud; that if they slab it, "it can't be a good idea" because it may be used to defraud a buyer. How? Through misrepresentation, of course. Not by manipulating the CGC label or product, but by pricing it aggressively for what it is, hoping that a buyer with a little too much enthusiasm to eagerly own an AS 1 and beat someone to the punch, may somehow hastily buy it without reading the label. 

Of course, I'm against someone defrauding a buyer by misrepresenting an item. But this is a case where if someone simply looks at the picture, the book, the slab, the label, it's all there as to what it is, and it is what it is, and CGC has made sure it is correctly identified.

I understand your contention that CGC shouldn't do this thereby chance arming an unscrupulous seller with ammunition to defraud. I get that. And I just don't see anything responsibly remiss with CGC slabbing this, as long it is labeled properly, and it is.

For that matter, if you're upset by this, why not question CGC slabbing 1966 Book and Record reprints? I'm sure more than one buyer has been fooled by that at some time. It looks like an AS 1, right? But it's not. And like this piece, CGC clearly and concisely identifies GRRs as such and if a buyer erroneously buys one of those, thinking it's the 1963, that's not on CGC, that's on the buyer and could be avoided by reading the label which CGC has provided even if the seller does not.

Edited March 8, 2019 by James J Johnson