Marvel Comics #1 Voldy slabbed copy on Metro Question
4 4

156 posts in this topic

4,159 posts
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

Exactly.  It is not a "3.0", "qualified", or otherwise.  

It's a coverless with a fake cover inside a worthless slab.

It might be a $10k book.

-J.

Unless you believe and have some evidence that the proof cover is a "fake" as in not really a proof cover you might wanna use a different term, because that's the impression it creates.

Edited by bluechip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,341 posts
1 hour ago, bluechip said:

Unless you believe and have some evidence that the proof cover is a "fake" as in not really a proof cover you might wanna use a different term, because that's the impression it creates.

"Fake cover"= Not an actual published cover but something else that somebody dug out of a drawer and stapled to a coverless copy after the fact to "create" a "complete" copy that Voldy was only too happy to "grade" as a "3.0".

So what exactly about this book is a "3.0"? The fake, after market cover that was never part of the original book? Or are the coverless interiors supposed to be a "3.0"? And why is this graded as a straight "3.0" and not a qualified 3.0 by this company?  Their grading policy and their labels have a well documented history of being on the sketchy side.

That's why people specifically and routinely go to them with books like this.

There, I said it.  :sumo:

-J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,786 posts
20 minutes ago, Timely said:

This is not a "fake" cover, it is a vintage cover printed in 1939. Best for you get facts before you type out your libel lies.

There, I said it. :sumo:

What would you have put, West?

Married?

Do blank interior covers make it incomplete?

Extra staples, I assume at this grade, would not keep it out of a universal label?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,366 posts
21 hours ago, Primetime said:

I love Cap as a character, but as a comic book, Marvel 1 always trumps Cap 1 for me due to the great history entrenched in it....Goodman, a master pulp distributer, taking on and publishing a comic book for the first time in his career while enlisting Jacquet's army of qualified artists....Frank Torpey's name appearing later in the Marvel Mystery 9 Torch/Subby battle story is quite entertaining...but I'm the only one that cares :luhv:about that none sense in the 2019 collector's world. :insane:

There’s at least two of us who care Ben. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,541 posts
35 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

"Fake cover"= Not an actual published cover but something else that somebody dug out of a drawer and stapled to a coverless copy after the fact to "create" a "complete" copy that Voldy was only too happy to "grade" as a "3.0".

So what exactly about this book is a "3.0"? The fake, after market cover that was never part of the original book? Or are the coverless interiors supposed to be a "3.0"? And why is this graded as a straight "3.0" and not a qualified 3.0 by this company?  Their grading policy and their labels have a well documented history of being on the sketchy side.

That's why people specifically and routinely go to them with books like this.

There, I said it.  :sumo:

-J.

Voldy has a top notch reputation. Borock and Ricketts are class acts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,433 posts
4 minutes ago, Knightsofold said:

There’s at least two of us who care Ben. :)

 

:banana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,370 posts
13 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

"Fake cover"= Not an actual published cover but something else that somebody dug out of a drawer and stapled to a coverless copy after the fact to "create" a "complete" copy that Voldy was only too happy to "grade" as a "3.0".

So what exactly about this book is a "3.0"? The fake, after market cover that was never part of the original book? Or are the coverless interiors supposed to be a "3.0"? And why is this graded as a straight "3.0" and not a qualified 3.0 by this company?  Their grading policy and their labels have a well documented history of being on the sketchy side.

That's why people specifically and routinely go to them with books like this.

There, I said it.  :sumo:

-J.

Baloney, ...there, I said it!  :wink:

"Fake" would be a photostat or other non-contemporaneous replication of the original.  Conversely, it isn't after market if shot from the original art.  In fact, it might be more accurately described as "pre-market" if it was created before the ads were shot.

The only thing that might be deemed sketchy about any third-party grading company is how books are graded and positioned in respect to their census.  IOW, it's kinda hard to make a case that the competition has any predisposition toward their own grading practices since they don't currently provide a census.

You throw out a lot of chaff, but provide absolutely no evidence to back up your "well documented history" claim.  It reminds me of folks who sidestep facts with comments like "everybody says" or "I've read that" or "reliable sources tell me".  Give me a break, why should we take your assertion literally?  Using this logic unique and highly desirable "ashcan" copies ...cobbled together for copyright purposes... would only be suitable for a Qualified designation.  Food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,341 posts
5 minutes ago, Cat-Man_America said:

Baloney, ...there, I said it!  :wink:

"Fake" would be a photostat or other non-contemporaneous replication of the original.  Conversely, it isn't after market if shot from the original art.  In fact, it might be more accurately described as "pre-market" if it was created before the ads were shot.

The only thing that might be deemed sketchy about any third-party grading company is how books are graded and positioned in respect to their census.  IOW, it's kinda hard to make a case that the competition has any predisposition toward their own grading practices since they don't currently provide a census.

You throw out a lot of chaff, but provide absolutely no evidence to back up your "well documented history" claim.  It reminds me of folks who sidestep facts with comments like "everybody says" or "I've read that" or "reliable sources tell me".  Give me a break, why should we take your assertion literally?  Using this logic unique and highly desirable "ashcan" copies ...cobbled together for copyright purposes... would only be suitable for a Qualified designation.  Food for thought.

Except this isn't an ashcan. It is a coverless copy with a fake cover stapled to it after the fact to make it appear "complete" and was disingenuously graded as such in yet another black eye slab to Voldy.

And sorry, I don't have time to do your due diligence with regards to Voldy's history of putting anything and everything in a blue slab in their desperate attempt to capture any meaningful marketshare (they still haven't and likely never will at this point). For those purposes I will simply refer you to either Google or these boards own search function.  (thumbsu

-J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,370 posts
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

Except this isn't an ashcan. It is a coverless copy with a fake cover stapled to it after the fact to make it appear "complete" and was disingenuously graded as such in yet another black eye slab to Voldy.

And sorry, I don't have time to do your due diligence with regards to Voldy's history of putting anything and everything in a blue slab in their desperate attempt to capture any meaningful marketshare (they still haven't and likely never will at this point). For those purposes I will simply refer you to either Google or these boards own search function.  (thumbsu

-J.

Any way you slice it, I've done the due diligence and stand by the "baloney" assertion. 

The coverless claim would only be applicable to a non-contemporaneous replication. I know that phrase isn't too difficult for you to grasp.  My use of the ashcan analogy is actually apropos.  These were very special books only created for internal use.  Pay copies, file copies, ashcans, they're all very special and have their own appeal.  To criticize the grading company, whether it was CGC or CBCS for making a judgment call on something uniquely collectible is a bridge too far, even by William Tecumseh Sherman's standards. :wink:

Edited by Cat-Man_America

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,159 posts
2 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

"Fake cover"= Not an actual published cover but something else that somebody dug out of a drawer and stapled to a coverless copy after the fact to "create" a "complete" copy that Voldy was only too happy to "grade" as a "3.0".

So what exactly about this book is a "3.0"? The fake, after market cover that was never part of the original book? Or are the coverless interiors supposed to be a "3.0"? And why is this graded as a straight "3.0" and not a qualified 3.0 by this company?  Their grading policy and their labels have a well documented history of being on the sketchy side.

That's why people specifically and routinely go to them with books like this.

There, I said it.  :sumo:

-J.

I thank you for clearing it up because neither I nor anybody I know outside of the hobby would ever think the word "fake" was defined the way you described.  Ditto for "after market" btw.  If anything, a proof cover would be "prior to market."   

Your vitriol certainly comes through more clearly, and specifically.  But I don't think it's healthy for the market or the hobby your blood pressures.  I have seen this book up for sale many times and it was always described using words that anybody with even average ability to read should have no illusions about what it is.    Problems arise when people get so riled up they're not content simply to avoid a book themselves, they just can't stand that it even exists.  They don't like somebody marrying a proof cover to a coverless copy so, somehow, some way, all people must be prevented from selling such a book.  So, It's not enough that a seller describes it accurately using, say, words used in their proper context.  They must be further required to use words that convey the true atrocity of the book.  It must be called "fake" or labeled with a color (purple!  green!)  or term which is synonymous for "bad"  ("restored"!  "qualified"!) because there are some people who might be inclined to buy the book, even fully understanding what it is and not minding, but they might avoid it if it had a "desecration/abomination" label. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,341 posts
8 minutes ago, bluechip said:

I thank you for clearing it up because neither I nor anybody I know outside of the hobby would ever think the word "fake" was defined the way you described.  Ditto for "after market" btw.  If anything, a proof cover would be "prior to market."   

Your vitriol certainly comes through more clearly, and specifically.  But I don't think it's healthy for the market or the hobby your blood pressures.  I have seen this book up for sale many times and it was always described using words that anybody with even average ability to read should have no illusions about what it is.    Problems arise when people get so riled up they're not content simply to avoid a book themselves, they just can't stand that it even exists.  They don't like somebody marrying a proof cover to a coverless copy so, somehow, some way, all people must be prevented from selling such a book.  So, It's not enough that a seller describes it accurately using, say, words used in their proper context.  They must be further required to use words that convey the true atrocity of the book.  It must be called "fake" or labeled with a color (purple!  green!)  or term which is synonymous for "bad"  ("restored"!  "qualified"!) because there are some people who might be inclined to buy the book, even fully understanding what it is and not minding, but they might avoid it if it had a "desecration/abomination" label. 

 

"After market"- was this book originally released without a cover ? No.  This cover (not even a complete and accurate one) was added after the fact when somebody found it in a drawer somewhere.  

Also, I noticed you tap danced around the substance of my point (again).

What exactly is Voldy grading as a "3.0"? The fake, aftermarket cover that was stapled on there by some guy who knows when ? Or the interior?  Have you ever seen a coverless interior get anything higher than a 0.5?  And do you think that books with fake, after market, non original covers should receive blue label grades?  You're of course entitled to your opinion but I find it misleading and dishonest- another black eye for Voldy.

-J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,942 posts
Posted (edited)

That book is 1 of a kind and a true Pieces of History (shrug) The hands that cover Touched and discussions they could have had back in 1938/1939 Nobody knows and that's  the beauty of it just Wow.

Edited by woowoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,159 posts
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

"After market"- was this book originally released without a cover ? No.  This cover (not even a complete and accurate one) was added after the fact when somebody found it in a drawer somewhere.  

Also, I noticed you tap danced around the substance of my point (again).

What exactly is Voldy grading as a "3.0"? The fake, aftermarket cover that was stapled on there by some guy who knows when ? Or the interior?  Have you ever seen a coverless interior get anything higher than a 0.5?  And do you think that books with fake, after market, non original covers should receive blue label grades?  You're of course entitled to your opinion but I find it misleading and dishonest- another black eye for Voldy.

-J.

You ask 100 average people with no prior knowledge about this what they would think you mean when you say an "after market" cover was attached to a 1939 book and I would bet that all or nearly all of them would think you meant the cover was made after 1939   Why would they think anything else?   I would also bet money that not even a single one of them would think you meant a proof cover, made prior to publication.   

I addressed that not because I want to "tap dance" around your point but because that, specifically, is the point you made with which I have an issue, because it's misleading and it feels willfully so.  People don't hate it as much as you do when it's accurately described, so you put in terms which describe it inaccurately, in hopes it will sound worse and they will hate it for something it isn't.

As for what makes it a 3.0 I can see what the cover looks like and I know the interior is blank.   I would like to see what the interior looks like but I would feel better served in that regard with pictures than I would with a numeric grade, because I have seen 3.0s with extremely nice interiors and others with not so nice interiors, from both grading companies.

 

 

Edited by bluechip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,341 posts
1 minute ago, bluechip said:

You ask 100 average people what they would think you mean when you say an "after market" cover was attached to a 1939 book and I would not bet that all or nearly all of them would think you meant the cover was made after 1939   I would not bet money that even a single one of them would think you meant a proof cover.   

I addressed that not because I want to "tap dance" around your point but because that, specifically, is the point you made with which I have an issue, because it's misleading and it feels willfully so.  People don't hate it as much as you do when it's accurately described, so you put in terms which describe it inaccurately, in hopes it will sound worse and they will hate it for something it isn't.

As for what makes it a 3.0 I can see what the cover looks like and I know the interior is blank.   I would like to see what the interior looks like but I would feel better served in that regard with pictures than I would with a numeric grade, because I have seen 3.0s with extremely nice interiors and others with not so nice interiors, from both grading companies.

 

 

I don't "hate" the book.  It is what it is.

I take exception with the misleading, dishonest slab somebody paid Voldy to put it in.

-J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,159 posts
4 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

I don't "hate" the book.  It is what it is.

I take exception with the misleading, dishonest slab somebody paid Voldy to put it in.

-J.

I heard that book described many years ago with words almost exactly like the ones used on the label.   So far I know, there is nothing misleading about them.   One can disagree whether it should have a 3.0 or some other number but what you seem to feel is "misleading" is actually, IMV, the LACK of misleading information which you would like to have on the cover, words or label colors that you can maintain as being synonymous with "fake" or "after market" (something, anything to force people to behave as if they hate it as much you do and therefore to value it accordingly)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,322 posts
5 hours ago, Cat-Man_America said:

Both companies grade books accused of having "iffy" labels.  As I see it, an "iffy" label is just a layman's opinion that something (apparently) went awry in the grading process resulting in a clearly debatable grade or other judgment call.  In either case, it's not proof of nefarious intent nor incompetence.  I've seen examples of books with CGC labels that I consider misgraded, but it's still just my opinion.

Key questions: How do you define "iffy" books? How do you define "iffy" grading? Inquiring minds want to know!

My cleaned up family friendly advice would be for you to post specific examples demonstrating egregious misgrading, ...otherwise, remove yourself from the poceilein throne.

One more polite suggestion: If I were you I'd use the term "reputation" ...employed perjoritively... with more care.  Just sayin'.   :foryou:

That entire post is a bit iffy but I guess my thoughts on your iffy post may be a bit iffy too. :jokealert:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
219 posts

I don't generally comment over here, but this is fascinating so I'll just say, i'm pretty sure CGC cares about intent, and, since this book was intended to be assembled by the original producer as it sits, they are considering it a book produced by its original producer as it was intended to be. Now whether that should be labeled a proof/ashcan or something else is debatable but they probably don't consider it restored or incomplete if this was an original assemblage by it's producer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
215 posts
Posted (edited)

 

Don't know why but I keep thinking of this quote with this book.........Look at this. It’s worthless — ten dollars from a vendor in the street. But I take it, I bury it in the sand for a thousand years, it becomes priceless. Like the Ark.”

Is it me or does the historical aspect of this book not blow you away?  While I don't know the entire history of the book I know what it says on the label and what iv read here & it seems this book has been around the block a few times with several members. However for me personally when I think of what this book represents to our hobby I find it fascinating it really is a significant piece of comic book history regardless of the grade or company that graded it IMHO.

Edited by Frank Mozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
331 posts
3 hours ago, Frank Mozz said:

However for me personally when I think of what this book represents to our hobby I find it fascinating it really is a piece of comic book history regardless of the grade or company that graded it IMHO.

"Buy the book, not the label." ;)

I'd love to see the complete cover (bc & spine). I take it that the complete cover is one piece? So here's the ONLY "printing proof" cover known to exist?? Fascinating!

Thankfully it hasn't "SEP" on it!

Share this post


Link to post
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
4 4