Heritage's Next Event Auction has started posting books ! 31 31

[tth2]

4 hours ago, adamstrange said:

It was for a tiny bump of .2 from 9.4 to 9.6.  Would the auction result have been much different if the book was unpressed?

9.6 > 9.4, and there's less chance of another 9.6 copy emerging than another 9.4 copy, thus giving the buyer more assurance that his/her copy will remain the best copy in the Census.

So yeah.

Edited April 5, 2021 by tth2

[adamstrange]

4 minutes ago, tth2 said:

9.6 > 9.4, so yeah.

It was the sole highest copy by a mile when it was a 9.4.  There isn't always much difference when it's sole highest 9.4 vs. 9.6 on a scarce GA Church book.

[tth2]

3 minutes ago, adamstrange said:

9 minutes ago, tth2 said:

9.6 > 9.4, so yeah.

It was the sole highest copy by a mile when it was a 9.4.  There isn't always much difference when it's sole highest 9.4 vs. 9.6 on a scarce GA Church book.

You know that, and I know that, but do the label collectors know that?

Just providing insight into the neurotic psyche of label collectors.

[lou_fine]

2 hours ago, Mmehdy said:

4 hours ago, adamstrange said:

It was for a tiny bump of .2 from 9.4 to 9.6.  Would the auction result have been much different if the book was unpressed?

possibly as 9.6 to me it is a serious upgrade from 9.4

Not so much if it's a HTF GA book that's already the highest graded copy by a wide margin, as opposed to a much more recent book with hundreds if not thousands in the same grade range where a tiny bump of 0.2 would make a difference of multiples.  

Especially, in this particular case here where the upgrade was probably done by some incompetent newbie who ended up "damaging" the book, instead of actually improving it.  As long time GA comic book collectors, should we not be more focused on "buying the book, as opposed to buying the label" which is clearly the exact opposite of the mantra that's adherred to by the day traders and speculators in today's marketplace where the grade is everything.   

[lou_fine]

26 minutes ago, tth2 said:

Just providing insight into the neurotic psyche of label collectors.

Have you been spending more time than normal in front of your mirror?    

[adamstrange]

32 minutes ago, tth2 said:

You know that, and I know that, but do the label collectors know that?

Just providing insight into the neurotic psyche of label collectors.

I did consider that, as it is often a factor.  Captain Courageous, however, is well outside the mainstream of what label-chasers usually chase, so it's less likely to be a factor. 

If we were discussing a Captain America comic, I would not have commented.

[Cat-Man_America]

4 hours ago, lou_fine said:

From your above post here, it is quite clear that you are showing your age here  and approaching this from the point of view of a long time comic book collector whose place is relagated more towards the back seat of this current red hot and sexy in vogue marketplace of ours.  

Clearly, what you are seeing as now-damaged books are in fact actually books which have been flattened and now maximized to their full potential.  It's best that you check your calendar because it's now 2021 whereby vintage collectible comic books are best treated as vehicles to be used by their owners for the purposes of acquiring more money.  

After all, hasn't it always been all about the money, and as long as all parties involved are getting more of it, shouldn't we all be good to go.    

The potential verses the risk of flattening the market is how I see it.  

That said, I almost spewed ale which is sacrilege.  If your tongue were planted any more firmly in your cheek this would be a Roger Corman horror flick. 

1 hour ago, tth2 said:

9.6 > 9.4, and there's less chance of another 9.6 copy emerging than another 9.4 copy, thus giving the buyer more assurance that his/her copy will remain the best copy in the Census.

So yeah.

The problem is that most pressing these days is in-house. so pressed or not the same folks are making the judgment call on grade.  

Why not just lobby for the .2 grade bump because it's a new year and the book has survived another year?   Hallelujah! 

[lou_fine]

16 minutes ago, Cat-Man_America said:

The problem is that most pressing these days is in-house. so pressed or not the same folks are making the judgment call on grade.  

Well, in theory at least, CCS is supposed to be working independently from CGC and one should not know what the other is doing.  

In the real world though, I am aware of certain situations whereby certain customers tend to get preferential overlapping treatment when it comes to resubs, pressing, regrading, and reholdering in order to lower the risk and thereby make it a more sure thing for the submittor.  Especially if you've got a large quantity of books and they also happen to be of pedigree status.   

[comicnoir]

8 hours ago, lou_fine said:

  I guess the only way to tell for sure is for you to contact CL so that they can let the winner know you are willing to buy the book from them (at a higher price point of course ) so that you can crack it out of the slab and check it out for yourself.  

I'll let you do the heavy lifting on that one. Just worried my HG copy of GSX 1 gets the proper treatment when I send it in for it's inevitable clean and press before I cash out. Soon.

Edited April 5, 2021 by comicnoir

[lou_fine]

4 minutes ago, comicnoir said:

8 hours ago, lou_fine said:

  I guess the only way to tell for sure is for you to contact CL so that they can let the winner know you are willing to buy the book from them (at a higher price point of course ) so that you can crack it out of the slab and check it out for yourself.  

I'll let you do the heavy lifting on that one. Just worried my HG copy of GSX 1 gets the proper treatment when I send it in for it's inevitable clean and press before I cash out. Soon.

No problem at all............just PM me your unlimited Amex credit card or bank account details and I'll contact Josh for you first thing in the morning.  

Seriously though, I hope you are getting your clean and press done through CCS because if they do mess up which is quite possible, it's all in the family and they'll squint their eyes and give you your grade because you've already paid your dues in full.  

[comicnoir]

1 hour ago, lou_fine said:

No problem at all............just PM me your unlimited Amex credit card or bank account details and I'll contact Josh for you first thing in the morning.  

Seriously though, I hope you are getting your clean and press done through CCS because if they do mess up which is quite possible, it's all in the family and they'll squint their eyes and give you your grade because you've already paid your dues in full.  

I always get my comics mangled and cut corners at CCS. Not always a guaranteed grade, although if you complain they'll deny everything and do as you ask.

[sagii]

13 hours ago, adamstrange said:

 

Funny, when i posted the book earlier before its closing day, I didn't even notice the grade bump (maybe because it was in the new pedigree slab , so my eye didn't go to the number in the corner). 

Imaging that 

[lou_fine]

15 hours ago, Mmehdy said:

17 hours ago, adamstrange said:

It was for a tiny bump of .2 from 9.4 to 9.6.  Would the auction result have been much different if the book was unpressed?

possibly as 9.6 to me it is a serious upgrade from 9.4

Well, since we are doing comparisons here and the two of you certainly have a lot more experience in this hobby than me, can you point out the differences for this File Copy of Crackajack Funnies that warrants not a tiny bump of 0.2, but a more serious upgrade of 3 grade increments,

https://comics.ha.com/itm/golden-age-1938-1955-/crackajack-funnies-9-file-copy-dell-1939-cgc-vf-nm-90-off-white-pages/a/830-91039.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

 

Or is this 3 incremental step upgrade due to a press job done properly since it was most likely done when Matt was still at CCS:  

 

https://comics.ha.com/itm/golden-age-1938-1955-/crackajack-funnies-9-file-copy-dell-1939-cgc-nm-96-off-white-to-white-pages/a/7169-92033.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515#

 

My bad as this is really more of an increase of 4 grade increments as the 9.6 is no longer in the census and has been replace by a CGC 9.8 graded copy instead.  I guess my eyes must really be going since I just don't see enough diffferences between these 2 scans to warrant such a big difference in grading to go from a CGC 9.0 all the way up to a CGC 9.8, or was the initial grade incorrect in the first place?    

[Mmehdy]

2 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

Well, since we are doing comparisons here and the two of you certainly have a lot more experience in this hobby than me, can you point out the differences for this File Copy of Crackajack Funnies that warrants not a tiny bump of 0.2, but a more serious upgrade of 3 grade increments,

https://comics.ha.com/itm/golden-age-1938-1955-/crackajack-funnies-9-file-copy-dell-1939-cgc-vf-nm-90-off-white-pages/a/830-91039.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

 

Or is this 3 incremental step upgrade due to a press job done properly since it was most likely done when Matt was still at CCS:  

 

https://comics.ha.com/itm/golden-age-1938-1955-/crackajack-funnies-9-file-copy-dell-1939-cgc-nm-96-off-white-to-white-pages/a/7169-92033.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515#

 

My bad as this is really more of an increase of 4 grade increments as the 9.6 is no longer in the census and has been replace by a CGC 9.8 graded copy instead.  I guess my eyes must really be going since I just don't see enough diffferences between these 2 scans to warrant such a big difference in grading to go from a CGC 9.0 all the way up to a CGC 9.8, or was the initial grade incorrect in the first place?    

I think in terms of price...why the sudden rise to double...yes this is a hot market, but the upgraded number is significant in terms of it being one of highest if not highest graded copies which would make those price changes somewaht explainable.

[lou_fine]

8 minutes ago, Mmehdy said:

I think in terms of price...why the sudden rise to double...yes this is a hot market, but the upgraded number is significant in terms of it being one of highest if not highest graded copies which would make those price changes somewaht explainable.

Really much more interested in the visual or technical reasons for such a huge bump in grade from CGC 9.0 all the way up to CGC 9.8, as the increase in the price realized makes perfect sense due to the grade increase.  

Edited April 5, 2021 by lou_fine

[Mr. Lady Luck]

1 hour ago, lou_fine said:

Well, since we are doing comparisons here and the two of you certainly have a lot more experience in this hobby than me, can you point out the differences for this File Copy of Crackajack Funnies that warrants not a tiny bump of 0.2, but a more serious upgrade of 3 grade increments,

https://comics.ha.com/itm/golden-age-1938-1955-/crackajack-funnies-9-file-copy-dell-1939-cgc-vf-nm-90-off-white-pages/a/830-91039.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

 

Or is this 3 incremental step upgrade due to a press job done properly since it was most likely done when Matt was still at CCS:  

 

https://comics.ha.com/itm/golden-age-1938-1955-/crackajack-funnies-9-file-copy-dell-1939-cgc-nm-96-off-white-to-white-pages/a/7169-92033.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515#

 

My bad as this is really more of an increase of 4 grade increments as the 9.6 is no longer in the census and has been replace by a CGC 9.8 graded copy instead.  I guess my eyes must really be going since I just don't see enough diffferences between these 2 scans to warrant such a big difference in grading to go from a CGC 9.0 all the way up to a CGC 9.8, or was the initial grade incorrect in the first place?    

This grade bump is pathetic.

[buttock]

29 minutes ago, Mr. Lady Luck said:

This grade bump focus on insignificant, but correctable for a profit defects by CGC is pathetic.

FTFY.

[tth2]

9 hours ago, lou_fine said:

I guess my eyes must really be going since I just don't see enough diffferences between these 2 scans to warrant such a big difference in grading to go from a CGC 9.0 all the way up to a CGC 9.8, or was the initial grade incorrect in the first place?

Not that I'm defending pressing or resubbing in any way, but it kind of drives me nuts when you (and others on these boards) base a grade solely on a scan of a slabbed book.

Even when you're holding a comic in hand, you can't grade it accurately through a slab or through a mylar.  When you try to grade a scan of a slabbed book, you're now trying to grade something that is two steps removed from the real thing, plus the only thing you're looking at is the exterior of the cover.

[lou_fine]

19 hours ago, tth2 said:

Not that I'm defending pressing or resubbing in any way, but it kind of drives me nuts when you (and others on these boards) base a grade solely on a scan of a slabbed book.

Even when you're holding a comic in hand, you can't grade it accurately through a slab or through a mylar.  When you try to grade a scan of a slabbed book, you're now trying to grade something that is two steps removed from the real thing, plus the only thing you're looking at is the exterior of the cover.

Had a eerily sleepless night last night and I couldn't quite figure out why until I woke up this morning to find a rather surprising and significant disturbance in the Force within the comic book universe.    

It would appear that @tth2 who had lost his trademark scarasm for the love of this hobby just last week based upon his post a couple pages ago may at long last be moving from the side of light towards the side of darkness.  Especially since tiny miniscule upgrades of only 1 or 2 grade increments based upon only comic book scans used to upset his love for this hobby of ours, it would now seem that far larger upgrades of 3 or 4 grade increments is much less of an issue today as we now need to have the actual book in hand before we can really comment on the grade of a book.    

Seriously though, in full agreement with the fact that you cannot grade a book on its own from just a scan as you really need to have the book in hand to grade it properly.  The situation here though is that we are talking about the exact same book with what are obviously widely different grades since the first grade is CGC 9.0 and the final grade which we do not have a scan of is CGC 9.8.  Since the exterior covers appear pretty much the same to me at least, I am also in full agreement that the reason for the 4-step incrmental upgrade could be due to defects in the interior of the book.  Which then presents the question if interior defects are being "fixed" to this extent inside the book, wouldn't this type of work normally (depending upon the type of work) be considered to be either restoration or conservation at a minimum.    

Being a Dell File Copy from the late 30's and early 40's, I am quite confident that the interiors of these book are pretty much immaculate as they were properly stored, as opposed to those much later Harvey File Copies which were all just stored in a massive warehouse.  All I know is that the Dell File Copies from the 30's/40's which I have along with the Curch Mile Highs and the Allentowns will definitely be the last books to leave my personal collection when that sad day eventually comes long long in the future hopefully.    

Now, Darth Tim here   is making me real curious as to the grading differences between the submissions of this exact same book here.  If I was placing a bet here since this is a Dell File Copy, my bet would be that any defects would most probably be limited to the exterior covers, as opposed to the interiors of the book.  Then again, it might just be changes to their undisclosed grading standards, loose grading vs. tight grading time periods, or dare we hopefully not say that a CGC 9.0 versus a CGC 9.8 is simply within CGC's acceptable grading margin of error when it comes to the grading of GA books. 

   Hmmmmm..................maybe I need to set me self up a GoFund Me page to front this 5 bucks that it's going to take to access the Graders' Notes just to satisfy my own curiosity here now.  

Edited April 6, 2021 by lou_fine

[mstrange]

On 4/4/2021 at 3:15 PM, adamstrange said:

 

Did the pressing cause the fading in the color or is that just the scanner setting?