Marvel Comics #1 Voldy slabbed copy on Metro Question 3 3

[woowoo]

4 hours ago, sacentaur said:

I very much disagree with this being in a universal holder, albeit from Voldy.

As is, this is not how the book was manufactured. We’re not talking about bindery chips or a miscut; a separate proof cover was “cut” (i.e., trimmed) and separately attached (married).

And my goodness, how do they know with certainty that it was the hands of Lloyd Jacquet who put the book together? 

The cover is a proof, blank inside. Now I understand other comics can be like that, such as Canadian editions of US comics, but that is the way the books were manufactured. That is not the case here.

This book has 3 non-production staples added, another difference.

This may be a historically significant book, worth big money, but the totality of the above does not equate to a universal label. The book should have been evaluated and properly labeled, instead of being forced into a universal holder, and then let the market decide.

How would anyone know if this was not the book that decided how to  manufacture Marvel 1 .  What adds to put in the inside covers  Where to trim the pages and so on.

Who is to say what cover goes to what inside ?  This is all part of the manufacturing maybe  I think he kept the best copy for himself  the Pay copy right.

I would think all this is to hard to prove

I don't know what to say abought the holder ? Good Bad or maybe

Edited May 14, 2019 by woowoo

[lou_fine]

On 5/12/2019 at 1:30 PM, Jaydogrules said:

On 5/12/2019 at 10:15 AM, Crowzilla said:

No, the pay copies were discovered many years apart from the bound volume. 

Still not sure what proof there is that Jacquet himself (as opposed to anyone else in the office) bound this, but it is cool. The photos of the inside though, if accurate, show the worst trim to an interior of a Marvel #1 that I've seen.

...and now that I know this is in fact from a bound edition (and obviously trimmed), and was stapled together after it was pulled from it's original bindings, I am even more shocked and appalled by the joke grade and label that CBCS gave this book.

But then again, that is basically why people use Voldy for books like this at this point.  

-J.

Oh Jay.............give it up.  

You can't fooled us anymore as we know you simply love not only this particular copy, but also the label that it's been slabbed with. 

After 5 pages of your over done vitriol here, it's quite obvious that your ploy is to simply scare away all of the other potential bidders from this book so that you can scoop it up on the cheap.  Clever plan, except I don't think it's going to work this time.    

[Cat-Man_America]

8 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

....Which is why somebody paid Voldy to pretend to grade this book, and not CGC.

-J.

Wow, .......................................................................seriously?  

[Crowzilla]

10 hours ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

I thought I understood someone earlier to say the "Pay" copy had also come from a bound volume, but I see in the GPA Analysis that it was given a 9.0 blue label.  Did I misunderstand this?

You did.

The Pay Copies were not from bound volumes, but were simply stored in manila folders in a file. There were several more books discovered with the three pay copies, the most significant of which was an Amazing Man #5 where the front cover appeared 9.0+, but the back cover had been glued to the manila folder and had been pulled off so was heavily damaged. None of the other books though had any stamps on them, or pay notations, but were definitely from his files.

[Timely]

Sometimes there are comics that are the exception to the rule. All vintage comics are trimmed. They are trimmed by machine. In the case of the Marvel #1 proof cover, it was not trimmed by a machine, so it was probably an inch or so larger than the interior. So the office of Lloyd Jacquet hand cut the cover to be the size of the interior, then it was bound.

This goes to intent.  At no time was this book trimmed to hide restoration or edge defects to make it appear better. Just like when a comic has color applied to it, was the color added to hide color breaking defects to make the book appear better, or was color added because someone wanted to color Superman's "S" on his chest green instead of yellow.  When color is added to hide defects like in the first example,  it is "color touch" and considered restoration. When color is added to a comic such as in the second example, it is not considered restoration, it is a defect that is downgraded for.

In the case of this Marvel #1 File Copy, it is like case #2.  There was no intent to hide or cover up, it was trimmed once (by hand vs by machine), bound & put away by the publisher, never intended to be sold on the newsstand. The label clearly states what was done.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

So I guess we have to decide the book’s value to us as individuals, irrespective of label. Although we always tell each other “buy the book, not the label”, this still feels like uncharted territory 

[Jaydogrules]

47 minutes ago, Timely said:

Sometimes there are comics that are the exception to the rule. All vintage comics are trimmed. They are trimmed by machine. In the case of the Marvel #1 proof cover, it was not trimmed by a machine, so it was probably an inch or so larger than the interior. So the office of Lloyd Jacquet hand cut the cover to be the size of the interior, then it was bound.

This goes to intent.  At no time was this book trimmed to hide restoration or edge defects to make it appear better. Just like when a comic has color applied to it, was the color added to hide color breaking defects to make the book appear better, or was color added because someone wanted to color Superman's "S" on his chest green instead of yellow.  When color is added to hide defects like in the first example,  it is "color touch" and considered restoration. When color is added to a comic such as in the second example, it is not considered restoration, it is a defect that is downgraded for.

In the case of this Marvel #1 File Copy, it is like case #2.  There was no intent to hide or cover up, it was trimmed once (by hand vs by machine), bound & put away by the publisher, never intended to be sold on the newsstand. The label clearly states what was done.

Actually, it doesn't.  Not even close. And dropping it into a "universal holder" is the final slap on the face to any potential buyer who may not be as educated or knowledgeable about vintage comics as most of the people posting here.  And the grade that it was assigned by Voldy? Please.  Let's just say that a legitimately graded copy would have been more interested in disclosing the following...

1) "From a bound volume"

2) "Trimmed"

3) "Married, 'proof' cover"

4) "No manufacturing staples present"

5) "Non-manufacturing holes present through cover and all pages, affects story"

6) "Cover and all pages detached, attached with non-manufacturing staples"

...rather than the entirely superfluous, unknowable and made up information of who allegedly put this thing together 80 years ago.

So yes- this is why somebody decided to pay Voldy to grade this and not CGC.  

-J.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Jaydogrules

[Crowzilla]

51 minutes ago, Timely said:

So the office of Lloyd Jacquet hand cut the cover to be the size of the interior, then it was bound.

I don't really care if this book is in a blue label or not, but what you are describing certainly sounds like someone "intended" to improve the appearance of the book by cutting the cover to fit the insides.

[Timely]

49 minutes ago, Crowzilla said:

I don't really care if this book is in a blue label or not, but what you are describing certainly sounds like someone "intended" to improve the appearance of the book by cutting the cover to fit the insides.

Yes, just like the covers that are machine trimmed, this cover was hand trimmed to fit the insides!

[Cat-Man_America]

5 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

Actually, it doesn't.  Not even close. And dropping it into a "universal holder" is the final slap on the face to any potential buyer who may not be as educated or knowledgeable about vintage comics as most of the people posting here.  And the grade that it was assigned by Voldy? Please.  Let's just say that a legitimately graded copy would have been more interested in disclosing the following...

1) "From a bound volume"

2) "Trimmed"

3) "Married, 'proof' cover"

4) "No manufacturing staples present"

5) "Non-manufacturing holes present through cover and all pages, affects story"

6) "Cover and all pages detached, attached with non-manufacturing staples"

...rather than the entirely superfluous, unknowable and made up information of who allegedly put this thing together 80 years ago.

So yes- this is why somebody decided to pay Voldy to grade this and not CGC.  

-J.

As I stated before ...and via visual reenforcement... if you want to carry CGC's water for the purpose of making a point that is certainly your prerogative, but at least be honest about it.  Clearly, you have an agenda (hard-on?) to trash the competition.  

My take on this book is somewhat different from your's and the opinion that you're espousing given the evidence appears disingenuous.

What is your issue with this coming from a bound volume? Other books have been been removed from binding and graded as such before. Since this isn't a restored book and worthy of special consideration, what color label do you consider correct?

Where is your proof of before or after market trimming by anyone outside of the printer? 

Married covers are usually applied to after market books sometimes for deception, although sometimes just to make a book whole at the whim of a collector.  This isn't an after market book.  The Oct. proof cover alone enhances it's consumer value.  How should something this unique be regarded?

Why would you expect manufacturing staples be present for a proof cover co-joined with early press copy pages of this book? Detached pages suggest this was a pre-press run copy cobbled together for a bound legacy volume.  Also, the irregular cut to pages is commonplace with this book as pointed out by Gator and others earlier in this thread.

The ball is in your flooded court.  Carry on.

[MrBedrock]

I assume this copy was given special consideration despite its peculiarities because it was found in the publisher's estate. I also assume that if this same copy had been found under some circumstance where its background were completely unknown it would not have been afforded the same consideration as far as labeling.

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by MrBedrock

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

12 minutes ago, MrBedrock said:

I assume this copy was given special consideration despite its peculiarities because it was found in the publisher's estate. I also assume that if this same copy had been found under some circumstance where its background were completely unknown it would not have been afforded the same consideration as far as labeling.

 

That’s almost exactly what Metro told me when I asked

[bluechip]

Steve is correct to say this is not how the book was manufactured -- at least, not how it was manufactured for sale.  It was clearly handmade, but it's still a comic book because it was handmade by a person who had a hand in creating the book.  

But to whomever wants to cloud the value of this by throwing doubt on whether Lloyd Jacquet made this or someone else I would have to say what difference does it make, when we know the book was assembled this way 80 years ago in the production offices and it was put in a binder with other production materials and ended up in Jacquet's estate?   So it wouldn't matter if it was assembled by an office worker at Jacquet's instruction (or not) and bound for reference.   The Jacquet provenance does not stem from any reverence or fame owed to Jacquet who is world's away from being a household name or even a vaguely familiar to the vast majority of comic fans.   It stems imply from the fact that it's known he had a hand in the production, and that, therefore, items found in his estate (and sold initially for small sums) deserve the presumption of being genuine.   

The hobby has gotten to the point where memorabilia and production-related items command interest and have value.  I can understand that they are not everyone's cup of tea, but it just feels really when I see (hear or read) people just frothing at the mouth, furious that anyone else should like them more than they do, and absolutely incensed that anyone should ever be allowed to sell them without them being encased in a slab with a big bold warning, even if the words used in the warning make no sense at all.  They just want (or insist or demand) that something be done to prevent the things from selling for more than they think it should sell for.  Sometimes it seems as if they worry that any respect at all for things that don't like (or don't have) must inherently have a deleterious effect on the value of their possessions, and that just isn't so,

[woowoo]

4 hours ago, Cat-Man_America said:

As I stated before ...and via visual reenforcement... if you want to carry CGC's water for the purpose of making a point that is certainly your prerogative, but at least be honest about it.  Clearly, you have an agenda (hard-on?) to trash the competition.  

My take on this book is somewhat different from your's and the opinion that you're espousing given the evidence appears disingenuous.

What is your issue with this coming from a bound volume? Other books have been been removed from binding and graded as such before. Since this isn't a restored book and worthy of special consideration, what color label do you consider correct?

Where is your proof of before or after market trimming by anyone outside of the printer? 

Married covers are usually applied to after market books sometimes for deception, although sometimes just to make a book whole at the whim of a collector.  This isn't an after market book.  The Oct. proof cover alone enhances it's consumer value.  How should something this unique be regarded?

Why would you expect manufacturing staples be present for a proof cover co-joined with early press copy pages of this book? Detached pages suggest this was a pre-press run copy cobbled together for a bound legacy volume.  Also, the irregular cut to pages is commonplace with this book as pointed out by Gator and others earlier in this thread.

The ball is in your flooded court.  Carry on.

What"s up Cat_Man  I say we have an internet drink 1 for you 2 for me sound's right the way this thread is going  This is a great piece of history and that is worth more than any holder.  I think it should have got a 4.0 cause that is what it would take to get off my hand's maybe 5.0

 

[sfcityduck]

On 5/14/2019 at 3:43 AM, Crowzilla said:

You did.

The Pay Copies were not from bound volumes, but were simply stored in manila folders in a file. There were several more books discovered with the three pay copies, the most significant of which was an Amazing Man #5 where the front cover appeared 9.0+, but the back cover had been glued to the manila folder and had been pulled off so was heavily damaged. None of the other books though had any stamps on them, or pay notations, but were definitely from his files.

Aren’t there other “pay copies” for other publishers with notations?  I thought Zaid or someone else had one.

[sfcityduck]

18 hours ago, MrBedrock said:

I assume this copy was given special consideration despite its peculiarities because it was found in the publisher's estate. I also assume that if this same copy had been found under some circumstance where its background were completely unknown it would not have been afforded the same consideration as far as labeling.

 

We should all agree this thing is not a newsstand comic.  It is either a production mock up, ashcan, an unknown type of production artifact, or (worst case) a frankenbook (which apparently not the case).  But it is not a newsstand comic. 

Regardless of the grading company I would prefer the label to state that qualifier.  

And, more importantly I would like the grading companies to be consistent!  If this type of thing is worthy of a holder (and based on amf 2/3 example both leading grading cos think it is), THEN ASHCANS WITH EQUALLY GOOD OR BETTER PROVENANCE ALSO DESERVE HOLDERS.  

Universal holders are fine by me for hand assembled items if they just note that on the label and make clear (unlike with this mc 1 artifact) that it is not a normal newsstand edition of MC 1.

Anyone really disagree?

[woowoo]

27 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

We should all agree this thing is not a newsstand comic.  It is either a production mock up, ashcan, an unknown type of production artifact, or (worst case) a frankenbook (which apparently not the case).  But it is not a newsstand comic. 

Regardless of the grading company I would prefer the label to state that qualifier.  

And, more importantly I would like the grading companies to be consistent!  If this type of thing is worthy of a holder (and based on amf 2/3 example both leading grading cos think it is), THEN ASHCANS WITH EQUALLY GOOD OR BETTER PROVENANCE ALSO DESERVE HOLDERS.  

Universal holders are fine by me for hand assembled items if they just note that on the label and make clear (unlike with this mc 1 artifact) that it is not a normal newsstand edition of MC 1.

Anyone really disagree?

       No.

 

Can I get PROVENANCE on this since it did come from Carl himself ? bought this many years ago The Letter was a huge surprise since it was not in the listing

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by woowoo

[Cat-Man_America]

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

We should all agree this thing is not a newsstand comic.  It is either a production mock up, ashcan, an unknown type of production artifact, or (worst case) a frankenbook (which apparently not the case).  But it is not a newsstand comic. 

Regardless of the grading company I would prefer the label to state that qualifier.  

And, more importantly I would like the grading companies to be consistent!  If this type of thing is worthy of a holder (and based on amf 2/3 example both leading grading cos think it is), THEN ASHCANS WITH EQUALLY GOOD OR BETTER PROVENANCE ALSO DESERVE HOLDERS.  

Universal holders are fine by me for hand assembled items if they just note that on the label and make clear (unlike with this mc 1 artifact) that it is not a normal newsstand edition of MC 1.

Anyone really disagree?

Agree with this and would add that this was actually done (looking back to the link in the first post).  If there's any wiggle room for critics, it's that there's insufficient evidence that Lloyd Jacquet actually assembled this mock-up himself.  That is of negligible importance next to the fact that this is a pre-release copy of MC #1 pulled together in '39 by Lloyd Jacquet or at his behest, bound and kept with his estate.

We may never know the actual reasoning behind why this pre-production copy was compiled, but I believe the real value of this book has more to do with the uniqueness of the proof cover than the interiors.  

Who put the book together in 1939 is far less important than the fact that there's an Oct. proof cover combined in a pre-production mock-up.  This book has unique historical relevance that appears to be graded just about right judging by condition.  I also agree that Ashcan copies produced internally to secure copyright protection for titles should be graded and holdered with similar attention.

So, we're essentially in agreement across the board, minutiae notwithstanding.

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by Cat-Man_America

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

We should all agree this thing is not a newsstand comic.  It is either a production mock up, ashcan, an unknown type of production artifact, or (worst case) a frankenbook (which apparently not the case).  But it is not a newsstand comic. 

Regardless of the grading company I would prefer the label to state that qualifier.  

And, more importantly I would like the grading companies to be consistent!  If this type of thing is worthy of a holder (and based on amf 2/3 example both leading grading cos think it is), THEN ASHCANS WITH EQUALLY GOOD OR BETTER PROVENANCE ALSO DESERVE HOLDERS.  

Universal holders are fine by me for hand assembled items if they just note that on the label and make clear (unlike with this mc 1 artifact) that it is not a normal newsstand edition of MC 1.

Anyone really disagree?

I’m familiar with the book you cite.  I’m assuming CGC gave it a blue holder because it did not have extra non-manufacturing staples, and because it didn’t come from a bound volume.  So CGC didn’t believe it had been trimmed, either.   I’m also told the book does not contain the true contents of the newsstand copy.  

I don’t mean to substitute my thinking for CGC’s, because they haven’t shared their thoughts with me. 

I do think the unique nature of the MC 1 deserves a better fate than a PLOD, or qualified label

Edited May 15, 2019 by GreatCaesarsGhost

[bluechip]

2 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

We should all agree this thing is not a newsstand comic.  It is either a production mock up, ashcan, an unknown type of production artifact, or (worst case) a frankenbook (which apparently not the case).  But it is not a newsstand comic. 

Regardless of the grading company I would prefer the label to state that qualifier.  

And, more importantly I would like the grading companies to be consistent!  If this type of thing is worthy of a holder (and based on amf 2/3 example both leading grading cos think it is), THEN ASHCANS WITH EQUALLY GOOD OR BETTER PROVENANCE ALSO DESERVE HOLDERS.  

Universal holders are fine by me for hand assembled items if they just note that on the label and make clear (unlike with this mc 1 artifact) that it is not a normal newsstand edition of MC 1.

Anyone really disagree?

Nothing to disagree with here.

Never thought that a comic was only a comic if it was on a newsstand.  If so that would rule out many other books which are known or suspected never to have been on a newsstand, yet I haven't heard anyone opine that they should not be slabbed/certified or done so only with with special colors.  

Edited May 15, 2019 by bluechip