Marvel #1 5 5

[Primetime]

16 minutes ago, Chicago Boy said:

What’s a Pay Copy again ? 

The copy that was used to record how much money was being paid to each artist that contributed to Marvel 1. 

[pemart1966]

19 minutes ago, Chicago Boy said:

What’s a Pay Copy again ? 

Generally - editor (or similar) writes on the front cover the artist and how much they got paid - might also write what feature the artist did.

[sfcityduck]

2 hours ago, sartrexpress said:

Also... does anyone know why the pay copy is not an October copy?

Was Goodman known for paying his employees in a timely fashion?  I doubt it.  

[pemart1966]

14 hours ago, buttock said:

Heritage has never tried to hide a book's history.  They maintain their sales archive without manipulation like other auction houses and encourage its use.  Why would you ever think that they would be trying to hide a book's history? 

Well...they make no mention in their description about the book's grading history which is pretty significant wouldn't you agree?

Edited October 11, 2019 by pemart1966

[batman_fan]

6 hours ago, Chicago Boy said:

I know of two 7 figures players that read but do not post. One of which told me the boards are full of and for insufficiently_thoughtful_persons.  

guilty as charged 

[batman_fan]

8 hours ago, tth2 said:

Nothing's been revealed about the book except here in this thread.  Much as we'd like to think that these Boards are influential, I think there are lots of big collectors who pay no attention to these Boards.  Do we think Hariri, for example, has any idea about these Boards?  Conversely, I don't think anyone who's posted in this thread is a collector who's been driving the million dollar end of the market.

So I doubt that what's been disclosed by Masterchef in this thread will have any impact on the price.

In any event, even if the book has gone from an 8.5 to a 9.4, do the big spenders care?  Do we think that the 9.4 Cap #1 went for less than it would've gone for if its history hadn't been revealed on these Boards?

I must respectfully disagree, based on my sources, the Green New Deal was based on the thread "Are Newton Rings 'normal and acceptable'? "

[adamstrange]

4 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Was Goodman known for paying his employees in a timely fashion?  I doubt it.  

Goodman always paid in a Timely fashion.

[sartrexpress]

2 hours ago, adamstrange said:

Goodman always paid in a Timely fashion.

fashionably late..lol......anyone know what the highest graded October copy is?

[tth2]

14 hours ago, RareHighGrade said:

Except for the author of this post?  

 

I wish!  

[tth2]

14 hours ago, Chicago Boy said:

I know of two 7 figures players that read but do not post. One of which told me the boards are full of and for insufficiently_thoughtful_persons.

Exactly.  Even if they read these Boards, they don't necessarily believe or agree with what's written here.  Most of them, if they're even aware of these Boards, look down on them as being populated by a bunch of penny-ante know nothings.

[tth2]

7 hours ago, pemart1966 said:

Well...they make no mention in their description about the book's grading history which is pretty significant wouldn't you agree?

They've never included that in any of their descriptions.  Nor does any other auction house or dealer that I'm aware of.

[MasterChief]

On 10/10/2019 at 6:37 AM, sartrexpress said:

But after seeing the book in person IMO its still a 8.5 pushing 9.0. You cannot see the spine wear or the back cover top staple tears in the scan. In fact to compare scans is ludicrous as every computer is calibrated different and every scan at any given moment colors can look different.

The basic principle of comparative image analysis is to evaluate how the collectible may have changed over time through examination, detection, localization, and quantification of different kinds of physical traits and features using before and after digital imagery. The aim is to understand the differences and similarities in the imaged item and arrive at reasonable, objective conclusions as to the previous state vs the current state. The practice is used throughout the collectibles industry when conducting provenance research, certification history, and buying and selling due diligence with countless positive exemplars presented on these and other hobby forums and print media down through the years. 

While I would tend to agree that color values of an image may render somewhat differently in various makes and models of monitors and display screens depending on variables such as hardware and software configurations and settings, that should not limit or prohibit the practice of side-by-side comparative image analysis to arrive at logical conclusions when conducting research. In my opinion, to suggest the practice is "ludicrous" is naive and shortsighted as technological advancements in computer systems, graphic design applications, and image processing techniques to obtain meaningful information has aided examination analysis not hindered it.

As far as the apparent "staple tears" on the back cover goes; from my perspective, something is visible in the imagery which appear to be tears perpendicular to the top staple. Two of the images created in 2003 and 2005, respectively, give an indication of the defect. However, it is somewhat difficult the ascertain the discontinuity in the latter two scans created in 2019 as the scans appear unnaturally white or "washed out." That said, when comparing all four scans side-by-side the physical traits of a tear are fairly established. If you observed the staple tears when looking at the book in person, then it may be reasonable to conclude the imagery comparison supports that observation. The only question I would have at this point is why the grader notes don't mention "staple tears."

The below images are localized sections of subject book, back cover, upper staple.

Top row, left to right: scanned images CGC 8.5 (March 2003), CGC 9.0 (October 2005), CGC 9.4 (September 2019), CGC 9.4 WC (October 2019). Images cropped and resized for dimensional consistency and presentation.    

Bottom row, left to right: scanned images with high-pass sharpening adjustment applied.

(Click image for supersized view)

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by MasterChief
"Click image"

[szav]

17 hours ago, tth2 said:

Exactly.  Even if they read these Boards, they don't necessarily believe or agree with what's written here.  Most of them, if they're even aware of these Boards, look down on them as being populated by a bunch of penny-ante know nothings.

On behalf of the rest of the penny-ante know nothings I’d suggest such pompous a$$@&s might be missing out.  

One of the things I like best about this hobby is that it really brings together such a diverse group of people who would otherwise have no reason to talk to each other.  Rich and poor, young and old, humble and arrogant ... these boards are great fun.

[sartrexpress]

6 hours ago, MasterChief said:

The basic principle of comparative image analysis is to evaluate how the collectible may have changed over time through examination, detection, localization, and quantification of different kinds of physical traits and features using before and after digital imagery. The aim is to understand the differences and similarities in the imaged item and arrive at reasonable, objective conclusions as to the previous state vs the current state. The practice is used throughout the collectibles industry when conducting provenance research, certification history, and buying and selling due diligence with countless positive exemplars presented on these and other hobby forums and print media down through the years. 

While I would tend to agree that color values of an image may render somewhat differently in various makes and models of monitors and display screens depending on variables such as hardware and software configurations and settings, that should not limit or prohibit the practice of side-by-side comparative image analysis to arrive at logical conclusions when conducting research. In my opinion, to suggest the practice is "ludicrous" is naive and shortsighted as technological advancements in computer systems, graphic design applications, and image processing techniques to obtain meaning information has aided examination analysis not hindered it.

As far as the apparent "staple tears" on the back cover goes; from my perspective, something is visible in the imagery which appear to be tears perpendicular to the top staple. Two of the images created in 2003 and 2005, respectively, give an indication of the defect. However, it is somewhat difficult the ascertain the discontinuity in the latter two scans created in 2019 as the scans appear unnaturally white or "washed out." That said, when comparing all four scans side-by-side the physical traits of a tear are fairly established. If you observed the staple tears when looking at the book in person, then it may be reasonable to conclude the imagery comparison supports that observation. The only question I would have at this point is why the grader notes don't mention "staple tears."

The below images are localized sections of subject book, back cover, upper staple.

Top row, left to right: scanned images CGC 8.5 (March 2003), CGC 9.0 (October 2005), CGC 9.4 (September 2019), CGC 9.4 WC (October 2019). Images cropped and resized for dimensional consistency and presentation.    

Bottom row, left to right: scanned images with high-pass sharpening adjustment applied.

(Click image for supersized view)

 

Comparing scans for structural issues works for me... what cannot be compared in scans are color and tonality..even "in person" light conditions will change tonal appearances ...Also, what we do not see in a flat scan is the spine through the side of the holder. If anyone is going to spend a million dollars on anything, I suggest taking the time to look with your own eyes and not depend on scans. 

[pemart1966]

21 hours ago, tth2 said:

They've never included that in any of their descriptions.  Nor does any other auction house or dealer that I'm aware of.

So it would seem.  

What's been revealed here is pretty significant and relevant information that would certainly cause me concern if I were a potential buyer.

[tth2]

4 hours ago, szav said:

On behalf of the rest of the penny-ante know nothings I’d suggest such pompous a$$@&s might be missing out.  

 And this is exactly why they avoid the Boards. 

Edited October 12, 2019 by tth2

[MasterChief]

On 10/10/2019 at 8:35 PM, tth2 said:

On 10/10/2019 at 12:55 PM, pemart1966 said:

Well...they make no mention in their description about the book's grading history which is pretty significant wouldn't you agree?

They've never included that in any of their descriptions.  Nor does any other auction house or dealer that I'm aware of.

The question of mentioning grading history in an auction description is rather intriguing. Before the question was posed herein, I would have sworn that I have seen the language used in a Heritage description or two before – or at least a mention that the item sold previously. So, to satisfy my curiosity and sanity of mind, I had to take a look under the archive's hood. Here's what I found:

...we previously sold this copy uncertified, also calling it NM-¹
...we previously sold it uncertified in 2006²
...we can say for certain that this copy was previously certified a 7.5 by CGC³ 

Then my research stopped after finding this (manufactured) Church copy upgrade, the description of which ties directly to a previously certified version sold by Heritage:

Super Comics #10 Mile High pedigree (Dell, 1939) CGC NM+ 9.6 White pages. When we previously sold this in a 9.0 holder (emphasis added) we tut-tutted in print about the grade being too low. Deservedly a 9.6, this is a glorious copy of an early book (January 1939 cover date). Tracy cover. Overstreet 2011 NM- 9.2 value = $700. CGC census 8/11: 1 in 9.6, none higher.

Super Comics #10 Mile High pedigree (Dell, 1939) CGC VF/NM 9.0 White pages

Super Comics #10 Mile High pedigree (Dell, 1939) CGC NM+ 9.6 White pages

_______________
^{1  Women Outlaws #8 Mile High pedigree (Fox Features Syndicate, 1949) CGC NM- 9.2 White pages
2  Feature Comics #28 Larson pedigree (Quality, 1940) CGC VF/NM 9.0 White pages
3  Mystic Comics #1 Nova Scotia pedigree (Timely, 1940) CGC FN+ 6.5 Off-white to white pages}

[Surfing Alien]

7 hours ago, MasterChief said:

The question of mentioning grading history in an auction description is rather intriguing. Before the question was posed herein, I would have sworn that I have seen the language used in a Heritage description or two before – or at least a mention that the item sold previously. So, to satisfy my curiosity and sanity of mind, I had to take a look under the archive's hood. Here's what I found:

...we previously sold this copy uncertified, also calling it NM-¹
...we previously sold it uncertified in 2006²
...we can say for certain that this copy was previously certified a 7.5 by CGC³ 

Then my research stopped after finding this (manufactured) Church copy upgrade, the description of which ties directly to a previously certified version sold by Heritage:

Super Comics #10 Mile High pedigree (Dell, 1939) CGC NM+ 9.6 White pages. When we previously sold this in a 9.0 holder (emphasis added) we tut-tutted in print about the grade being too low. Deservedly a 9.6, this is a glorious copy of an early book (January 1939 cover date). Tracy cover. Overstreet 2011 NM- 9.2 value = $700. CGC census 8/11: 1 in 9.6, none higher.

Super Comics #10 Mile High pedigree (Dell, 1939) CGC VF/NM 9.0 White pages

Super Comics #10 Mile High pedigree (Dell, 1939) CGC NM+ 9.6 White pages

_______________
^{1  Women Outlaws #8 Mile High pedigree (Fox Features Syndicate, 1949) CGC NM- 9.2 White pages
2  Feature Comics #28 Larson pedigree (Quality, 1940) CGC VF/NM 9.0 White pages
3  Mystic Comics #1 Nova Scotia pedigree (Timely, 1940) CGC FN+ 6.5 Off-white to white pages}

Great work. There's been plenty of quack on the boards here about how Heritage "amps" the saturation on their scans. One thing amping the saturation does is remove details such as the staple tears on this copy of Marvel #1. It's a beautiful copy no doubt, and a small fry like me would love to own just a staple from it but there is no way that a peon like me submits any book of any kind that gets a 9.4 with staple tears like that. Must be nice to be a "player".

Edited October 13, 2019 by Surfing Alien

[buttock]

44 minutes ago, Surfing Alien said:

Great work. There's been plenty of quack on the boards here about how Heritage "amps" the saturation on their scans. One thing amping the saturation does is remove details such as the staple tears on this copy of Marvel #1. It's a beautiful copy no doubt, and a small fry like me would love to own just a staple from it but there is no way that a peon like me submits any book of any kind that gets a 9.4 with staple tears like that. Must be nice to be a "player".

Given that it went from an 8.5 to a 9.4 isn't it more likely that those were creases and not tears? 

[Surfing Alien]

13 hours ago, buttock said:

Given that it went from an 8.5 to a 9.4 isn't it more likely that those were creases and not tears? 

I don't know... i'll fully confess to piling on. ... Sartre said he saw it in hand and it had staple tears. If it doesn't then i\'m wrong.