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

156 posts in this topic

2,518 posts
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, G.A.tor said:

Ive seen quite a few badly Miscut marvel 1s. Are we sure this one was trimmed. Other former bound volume jacquet books that have been graded by cgc were not notated as trimmed? 

without getting into the "most bound volumes are trimmed" discussion, I will clarify that I meant trimmed as in miscut. I've seen quite a few that clip the artwork, both at the bottom and/or along the edge, but with the large blank space at the top, there seems to be quite a lot missing if the Torch page is an indication (looks to be cut from the red line I drew on this nicely centered coverless copy). The Subby page seems to be cut at an angle, missing more from the left side than the right of the page.

marvel1.jpg

Edited by Crowzilla
clarify image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,433 posts
3 hours ago, Ameri said:

Overstreet quote: "most Marvel 1s have printing defects i.e. tilted pages which caused trimming into the panels usually on the right side and bottom." Here's my coverless. Same kind of defect as the Jacquet copy so it's a tilted page and not a trim. And... it only affects some of the pages, not all of the pages (as seen below). 

TRIMMVC-003S.JPG

TRIMMVC-009S.JPG

TRIMMVC-010S.JPG

TRIMmy old marvel 1 pussell copy.JPG

Marvel 1 is :luhv:

Share this post


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

As I said before- the book is what it is and it's "value" is whatever somebody ultimately decides to pay for it.

It is the slab that it sits in that's shameful and effectively worthless.

-J.

Technically, that could be said of all holders since the book determines value.  :wink:

7 hours ago, Ameri said:

Overstreet quote: "most Marvel 1s have printing defects i.e. tilted pages which caused trimming into the panels usually on the right side and bottom." Here's my coverless. Same kind of defect as the Jacquet copy so it's a tilted page and not a trim. And... it only affects some of the pages, not all of the pages (as seen below). 

TRIMMVC-003S.JPG

TRIMMVC-009S.JPG

TRIMMVC-010S.JPG

TRIMmy old marvel 1 pussell copy.JPG

Sweet!  :headbang:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
762 posts

As I understand it, trimming is hard to detect, even by cgc. And given the awkward cuts posted here, I guess we cannot simply conclude there had to have been trimming involved by the odd page appearance alone. I’m going to ask metro about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,433 posts
3 hours ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

As I understand it, trimming is hard to detect, even by cgc. And given the awkward cuts posted here, I guess we cannot simply conclude there had to have been trimming involved by the odd page appearance alone. I’m going to ask metro about this.

True, but Marvel 1s were notorious for miscut covers, miscut interiors, and poor cover registration. The printer in NJ that Goodman picked to run MC1 must have drove him nuts. When he switched printers to the one in Buffalo, NY the books appeared to be relatively better. Then sometime after Marvel Mystery 7, Goodman switched printers again to a spot in Meridan, CT which printed all the Timelys from that point forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27,183 posts
On 5/10/2019 at 7:45 PM, Cat-Man_America said:

Here's a later Lloyd Jacquet file copy (stamped) for reference...

3be6529c-aa20-49e7-8adb-a8901590a51c_zps

 

Hyperbole of this magnitude should require evidence.  If you want to carry CGC's water, that's fine ...there's nothing wrong with that given the degree of pandering we see on so many levels every day..., but please own up to it.  Do you think this will get you quicker TATs in Sarasota? Just curious.

BTW, that graded MC #1 has the competitor's oldest label (there have been several design changes since then). I don't see this book as a "shameless grading atrocity" ...but you're certainly entitled to that opinion.  While we're on the subject, maybe you can educate me as to how a book graded four or five years ago can jeopardize the current status of a grading company.  Am I missing something here? hm

Think I read somewhere that there's a rapid TAT promotion going on over there.  This doesn't convey the message to me of a company that's going out of business, ...but what do I know.  (shrug)

I like the way you think. (thumbsu

Share this post


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

So I'll risk being the insufficiently_thoughtful_person who asks, but what color label do books removed from bound volumes normally get?  Are they always labeled as "restored"?   It would seem like it should be that way.

Or, in the case of publisher bound volumes, do the graders just assume we, the buyers, should know the books have been trimmed, so they don't bother with the "restored" designation?  Instead, might they tout the provenance and just skip mention of the trim?

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?

Further question.  If Jacquet "hand cut" the cover, maybe that doesn't count as a trim job, if he was doing so at the same time he was binding it into this volume.

I don't think we will ever know about the exact timing of the "hand cut" of the cover and the time it was put into this bound volume.  Lost in the mists of time.

But if this book is truly an office copy, do we even care?  Is the historical significance of the book enough to overcome all else?

I really don't know any of these answers.  But the book does seem historically important if its as they say it is.

Edited by GreatCaesarsGhost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,310 posts
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

So I'll risk being the insufficiently_thoughtful_person who asks, but what color label do books removed from bound volumes normally get?  Are they always labeled as "restored"?   It would seem like it should be that way.

Or, in the case of publisher bound volumes, do the graders just assume we, the buyers, should know the books have been trimmed, so they don't bother with the "restored" designation?  Instead, might they tout the provenance and just skip mention of the trim?

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?

Further question.  If Jacquet "hand cut" the cover, maybe that doesn't count as a trim job, if he was doing so at the same time he was binding it into this volume.

I don't think we will ever know about the exact timing of the "hand cut" of the cover and the time it was put into this bound volume.  Lost in the mists of time.

But if this book is truly an office copy, do we even care?  Is the historical significance of the book enough to overcome all else?

I really don't know any of these answers.  But the book does seem historically important if its as they say it is.

Trimmed is not considered restoration and if that is all that has been done to the book it will get a Blue Label. It will always be noted when detected. (Not my book.) Bound does not always mean trimmed.  Sometimes the binder makes the cover big enough to cover the book. I have neither seen nor heard anything that makes me think this book is anything less than the Marvel it appears to be. :) I'd own it if I had the money.

B95EB785-8D31-48C1-89A5-D5C94997DB11.png.ff3847fc9f1df34007c8ec9e474b2c18.png

Edited by Badger

Share this post


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

So I'll risk being the insufficiently_thoughtful_person who asks, but what color label do books removed from bound volumes normally get?  Are they always labeled as "restored"?   It would seem like it should be that way.

Or, in the case of publisher bound volumes, do the graders just assume we, the buyers, should know the books have been trimmed, so they don't bother with the "restored" designation?  Instead, might they tout the provenance and just skip mention of the trim?

Problems nearly always get created when words are misused and the use of "restored" for books that were trimmed prior to binding is just one example.   

This happens because some people had apparently trimmed tiny edges of books to make them appear higher grade, so in that respect those trimmed books were considered "restored" because the removal of creased edges were them appear to be higher grade, hence they were, sort of, "restored" to an earlier state of a higher (apparent) condition.  So it, sort of, makes sense. 

But calling a book that's been trimmed to the point where it doesn't appear to be in nicer condition doesn't make any sense at all, unless you want, as some do, the word "restored" to be misapplied in order to get people to avoid the book. 

I know that's the case with some people, anyway.   Some hate the fact that people have trimmed a book to "restore" it so much they don't care if the word is being misused for bound books; they'll accept the inconsistency if it makes it less likely that any book trimmed for "restoration" can't escape condemnation.   Some others, I think, hate any sort of willful damage, so much so that they feel a book with a portion cut away has been "desecrated" (not making that up; it's a word I've heard multiple times), no matter the reason.

But, since there isn't any such thing as a desecration label the "restored" label serves to make many people avoid it, because they've been conditioned to have an automatic reaction that any non-blue label means "bad".      (I think I'm safe in saying that the person who's gone on about the Marvel 1 would really, really like to see the book in a "bad" label of some kind, making this a good illustration of the pitfalls of labels that use words imprecisely, since the words actually used on the label are pretty much as precise as they can be)

Talk with enough collectors and you will hear all kinds of things they feel should be put in a purple label, even when the items in question are not "restored" by an dictionary definition of the word. 

Of course, the green label means "qualified," which is a lot more vague and open to subjective evaluation.    So, it's more difficult if not impossible to say when (or if) it has been misused, because it's essentially understood that "qualified" is in the eye of the beholder.  So a grader can honestly say in nearly every case "I would give the book X grade if not for Y or Z defect, so here is my 'qualified' grade."  

 

Edited by bluechip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,786 posts
30 minutes ago, Badger said:

Trimmed is not considered restoration and if that is all that has been done to the book it will get a Blue Label.

Here is a book that has been trimmed and it appears that is all that has been done to it and it received a PLOD.  With the label changes and different views on conservation and restoration, I don't know what goes now.  And this is not my book.

1063457471_FireShotCapture090-Daredevil1CGC7.5Restored(OW-W)_-https___www.dacardworld.com_comic-.thumb.jpg.56f174f4775630566b1adff969dc0c15.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,310 posts
1 minute ago, telerites said:

Here is a book that has been trimmed and it appears that is all that has been done to it and it received a PLOD.  With the label changes and different views on conservation and restoration, I don't know what goes now.  And this is not my book.

1063457471_FireShotCapture090-Daredevil1CGC7.5Restored(OW-W)_-https___www.dacardworld.com_comic-.thumb.jpg.56f174f4775630566b1adff969dc0c15.jpg

Well, huh. Learn something new everyday!

Found this on CGC's FAQ page.

Trimmed books are given an apparent grade and, in accordance with CGC’s policy, are encapsulated with CGC’s Restored label.

I guess the current standard is to put trimmed into a restored holder. So, it depends on when the book was graded as to whether it gets a restored or a universal label.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,342 posts
1 minute ago, Badger said:

Well, huh. Learn something new everyday!

Found this on CGC's FAQ page.

Trimmed books are given an apparent grade and, in accordance with CGC’s policy, are encapsulated with CGC’s Restored label.

I guess the current standard is to put trimmed into a restored holder. So, it depends on when the book was graded as to whether it gets a restored or a universal label.

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

-J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,942 posts
57 minutes ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

So I'll risk being the insufficiently_thoughtful_person who asks, but what color label do books removed from bound volumes normally get?  Are they always labeled as "restored"?   It would seem like it should be that way.

Or, in the case of publisher bound volumes, do the graders just assume we, the buyers, should know the books have been trimmed, so they don't bother with the "restored" designation?  Instead, might they tout the provenance and just skip mention of the trim?

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?

Further question.  If Jacquet "hand cut" the cover, maybe that doesn't count as a trim job, if he was doing so at the same time he was binding it into this volume.

I don't think we will ever know about the exact timing of the "hand cut" of the cover and the time it was put into this bound volume.  Lost in the mists of time.

But if this book is truly an office copy, do we even care?  Is the historical significance of the book enough to overcome all else?

I really don't know any of these answers.  But the book does seem historically important if its as they say it is.

Not wanting to read this whole thing I say NOT-guilty-stamp.jpg.4ffdcc212c9732c2d5a67263d6ef2ee4.jpg Man you are good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
762 posts
3 minutes ago, woowoo said:

Not wanting to read this whole thing I say NOT-guilty-stamp.jpg.4ffdcc212c9732c2d5a67263d6ef2ee4.jpg Man you are good.

Pondering this topic wore me out.  Posting my questions wore me out.  I don't blame you for not wanting to read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,786 posts
2 minutes ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

Pondering this topic wore me out.  Posting my questions wore me out.  I don't blame you for not wanting to read it.

And I started this cluster-bomb.  I probably should apologize :sorry:

Share this post


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

OK, but what I am hearing here is that CGC would have given this a restored holder.  I understand bluechip's point that there is trimming for good reasons and trimming for bad reasons:  Bad reasons are when some nefarious book mechanic is trying to hide a flaw, and good reasons are when a publisher or amateur comic enthusiast just wants to create a bound volume.  But CGC doesn't appear interested in trying to determine motives by the trimmer, so they've adopted a bright line approach.  

Like bluechip, a restored holder seems like an indignity inappropriate for a book with this kind of historical significance.  I'd like to add it to my collection, but don't want to pay the money if no one else puts the kind of value on it that its current owner has. 

So . . . a show of hands:  is it worth $75k?

 

Edited by GreatCaesarsGhost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,942 posts
1 minute ago, telerites said:

And I started this cluster-bomb.  I probably should apologize :sorry:

You sound like this guy 1919989321_schoolfriend.jpg.1de93c6eecc2ed93a8dea07dced7d5da.jpg:makepoint::makepoint::makepoint::makepoint::makepoint: :whee:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,029 posts

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? (shrug)

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.

Share this post


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

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

-J.

Problem is that this is one of those areas that CGC gets wrong. 

A book that has been trimmed is not actually restored.  It is damaged.  Yes, some trimmed books were deliberately trimmed to make them appear better.  But even those would be more properly described as damaged.   And this one was not arguably trimmed with that intent.

In this case the book was clearly not trimmed to make it appear like a better grade.  It was either hand-trimmed from an untrimmed proof or trimmed to make it fit in a binder. 

Just because one grading company would put this in a misleading label that you believe would keep more people from buying it doesn't mean the owner should be expected to do that.

why fault somebody for not choosing the grading company that they know will describe it with words that simply aren't accurate? 

 

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