Amazing Spider-Man #184 All Detergent Has Anyone Seen This Version? 4 4

[GACollectibles]

I grabbed the book once I saw the All sticker, didn't even notice it had a price until hours later when I was looking at it again.  Dumb@ss, I should have left it in the box.

[Ryan.]

4 minutes ago, GACollectibles said:

Dumb@ss

[Readcomix]

2 hours ago, seanfingh said:

But it was in a $2 bin.  If it was a knowing fraudster, how did it not end up in a slab and in a huckster hyped auction?

Sadly, this is easy to explain. The knowing fraudster could have met an untimely death and had no heirs who knew anything about comics.   They could have just dumped the whole thing cheap to the local antiques shop, who had no specific knowledge of comics either, other than that they move for him at $2 apiece whenever he gets some.

Not saying that must be what happened, but that's a very plausible way for this to have ended up where it did, priced as it was.

[RCheli]

52 minutes ago, FlyingDonut said:

I will go on record that this is NOT an original copy. There has never been an priced version found of this AND the sticker is in the wrong place pursuant to every other copy.

The placement of the sticker would be my biggest concern for its legitimacy. The price is not nearly as troubling, even though this is the first one people have seen.

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 hours ago, FlyingDonut said:

I will go on record that this is NOT an original copy. There has never been an priced version found of this AND the sticker is in the wrong place pursuant to every other copy.

I'm with Dan.

[seanfingh]

3 hours ago, FlyingDonut said:

I will go on record that this is NOT an original copy. There has never been an priced version found of this AND the sticker is in the wrong place pursuant to every other copy.

So you believe someone got ahold of an All sticker and frankenbooked a regular copy of ASM 184, only to later have it wind up in a flea market. That certainly could be true, but I fail to see how that is somehow more likely than that it is a weird anomaly.

[seanfingh]

3 hours ago, Readcomix said:

Sadly, this is easy to explain. The knowing fraudster could have met an untimely death and had no heirs who knew anything about comics.   They could have just dumped the whole thing cheap to the local antiques shop, who had no specific knowledge of comics either, other than that they move for him at $2 apiece whenever he gets some.

Not saying that must be what happened, but that's a very plausible way for this to have ended up where it did, priced as it was.

I agree that is possible; I don't think it crosses the threshold into "plausible."

[sfcityduck]

10 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

 

 

      

\

Too me, the sticker on the right looks wrong.  The two stickers on the left are translucent.  The one on the right is not.  That could be explained by its being a counterfeit sticker (not hard to do).  

[GACollectibles]

1 minute ago, sfcityduck said:

Too me, the sticker on the right looks wrong.  The two stickers on the left are translucent.  The one on the right is not.  That could be explained by its being a counterfeit sticker (not hard to do).  

That is result of photo (1st two) vs scan (one on right) issue, it is actually translucent.  The edges of the sticker are also consistent all around the edge and doesn't look it was peeled up(though that's not a conclusive detail).

The sticker appears to have been put on prior to the bulk of wear on the comic, the paper under the sticker is not as rippled/creased as the rest of the book

[Readcomix]

15 minutes ago, seanfingh said:

I agree that is possible; I don't think it crosses the threshold into "plausible."

Fair enough; I only go so far as to say plausible because in my anecdotal experience I've seen a few collections come to market locally where the unfolding of the backstory reveals the heirs did not know/care about comics and were happy to sell them quickly with no knowledge they could have gotten more. Seems to me that happens enough for me to plausibly see this book as part of one of those types of collections. 

As to whether it's completely authentic, or an authentic sticker married incorrectly, or a counterfeit sticker, I have no clue. It's an interesting one!

[FlyingDonut]

1 hour ago, seanfingh said:

So you believe someone got ahold of an All sticker and frankenbooked a regular copy of ASM 184, only to later have it wind up in a flea market. That certainly could be true, but I fail to see how that is somehow more likely than that it is a weird anomaly.

Yes. The position of the sticker is important - it is covering the barcode, making it impossible to scan on 1978 bar code scanners, therefore free.

Edited September 25, 2019 by FlyingDonut

[Get Marwood & I]

3 hours ago, FlyingDonut said:

Yes. The position of the sticker is important - it is covering the barcode, making it impossible to scan on 1978 bar code scanners, therefore free.

Good point.

[comicwiz]

In a perfect world, the placement of the sticker would be important. It is borrowed entirely from the multipack format blocking out early direct editions which hadn't yet used a blank upc box. The logic here is that the price on a polybag (usually priced for two or three comics, with a whole penny of savings) would cause an issue at check out if the bar code on the comic was accidentally scanned. Blocking out that bar code peaking through from the issues inside the multipack meant avoiding such a scenario.

Utlimately my posts (including my PM's) have been to tread with caution before arriving at the conclusion this is right as rain, and I do believe the placement of the sticker would be a good tell on a no-price copy, however in the anomalous case a priced copy somehow found its way in the mix, trying to blocking the bar code with the sticker doesn't have the same effect on a copy that is visibly priced.

If we try to think back at how this promotion ran, we can assume a few things. These promotional copies were likely stickered at the retail level, where the bundle of books and a roll of stickers was provided along with a floor merchandiser whereby a comic would be matched to a box of detergent purchase. In the event where a retailer was short on an inventory of no price promotion copies, they might have made the decision at that moment in time to pull one off the newsstands to satisfy a deficient inventory problem.

Even if this isn't as plausable as a retail copy somehow finding itself mixed-in with a promotional kit (which I have to say is even a further stretch), and this is a retail copy that at some stage received a donor sticker, we have to look at the market dynamics. This isn't a no-price copy. The value dynamics are appreciably discriminate for this particular variant as it is deficient of a cover price, and even when those examples are lacking a sticker (assuming it was carefully removed and didn't leave a big circle in that spot), the reason why the market values this no-price variant is because it is far less common than the Whitman or newsstand edition. Not even the Mark Jewelers variant (which has only shown up for sale once in the last 8 years, and is seemingly much rarer than this all detergent promo of this particular issue) doesn't command anywhere near as much. I don't believe the sticker being on this issue has the same positive value trickle effect if it's a newsstand priced example, even if we see this as an error.

As I told @GACollectibles, and beyond the sticker placement, we cannot exclude the possibility an unused sticker or donor sticker (removed from one of the numerous examples that have sold over the years without a sticker) was saved and put back into play. The one thing that doesn't sit right with me is the residual adhesive staining seen from the inside cover. I have not seen that on other copies, at least not to this extent. I've held one in the past and I know I would have noticed that while flipping through the comic, which leaves me with an impression an intermediary adhesive was likely used to reattach a donor sticker, or even possibly an unused sticker whose adhesive agent had long expired. This is an assumption based on photos alone, and not conclusive, but something to add to the previous observations and opinions brought forward by others.

Edited September 25, 2019 by comicwiz

[divad]

3 hours ago, comicwiz said:

[W]e cannot exclude the possibility an unused sticker or donor sticker (removed from one of the numerous examples that have sold over the years without a sticker) was saved and put back into play. The one thing that doesn't sit right with me is the residual adhesive staining seen from the inside cover. I have not seen that on other copies, at least not to this extent. I've held one in the past and I know I would have noticed that while flipping through the comic, which leaves me with an impression an intermediary adhesive was likely used to reattach a donor sticker, or even possibly an unused sticker whose adhesive agent had long expired. This is an assumption based on photos alone, and not conclusive, but something to add to the previous observations and opinions brought forward by others.

 

[divad]

12 hours ago, Readcomix said:

I've seen a few collections come to market locally where the unfolding of the backstory reveals the heirs did not know/care about comics and were happy to sell them quickly with no knowledge they could have gotten more.

Happens every day.

[Get Marwood & I]

4 hours ago, comicwiz said:

As I told @GACollectibles, and beyond the sticker placement, we cannot exclude the possibility an unused sticker or donor sticker (removed from one of the numerous examples that have sold over the years without a sticker) was saved and put back into play.

Interesting isn't it.

Some extra thoughts - where would someone get an 'unused' sticker from? And why would that person understand it's significance upon finding it? If they did understand it's significance, why would they not have sought out and placed it in the right place on a no price copy without a sticker, thereby increasing it's value significantly? The stickered no price version, to my recollection, has always been a highly sought after book. It doesn't make sense that a person 'in the know' would place an unused sticker on a priced version and, in doing so, lose out on the potential value.

In a similar vein, and in respect of your second scenario, why would someone remove the sticker from an existing no price copy and save it? To save it would indicate a knowledge of it's value. To remove it reduces the original book's value significantly, something a person in the know surely would not do. If a person not in the know had the book, I can see why they would want to remove the sticker as they would not understand it's significance. But, being a person not in the know, they would throw it away, surely?

Also, what are the chances of being able to remove the sticker in such a way that it could be saved / reused? Looking at the old torn example I posted earlier, very unlikely:

 

So for me we are left with only two scenarios that would be reasonable:

1. The book is legitimate, and is the result of an effective mistake at the time of production (i.e. a priced copy was used in error, with the sticker placement being out of character to other copies itself possibly being linked to the fact that the priced copy was used, maybe because the original supply was exhausted)
2. The book was created as a wind up, long ago, using a self made sticker, by someone who wanted to see a debate like this unfold. To my mind, they would not have done it this way to make money had they had the good fortune to find an original unused sticker. They would have found a no price copy to stick the spare sticker on and made some money. 

The discussion is certainly intriguing, and I doubt we will ever know for sure, but I'm still going for scenario one at this point. 

[Get Marwood & I]

4 hours ago, comicwiz said:

Not even the Mark Jewelers variant (which has only shown up for sale once in the last 8 years, and is seemingly much rarer than this all detergent promo of this particular issue) doesn't command anywhere near as much.

[comicwiz]

46 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Also, what are the chances of being able to remove the sticker in such a way that it could be saved / reused? Looking at the old torn example I posted earlier, very unlikely:

Seemingly quite high, as there are more without stickers than with - the example you used is one of very, very few which show a botched sticker removal. Many of them don't even show the residue of a sticker even being there. What we don't know is the adhesion strength of these stickers, and whether those without a sticker were deliberately removed as seeming unsightly, or whether they just peeled off on their own. I would guess the former.

It's also quite possible that they didn't produce enough stickers for what was supposedly a 5,000 comic print run.The way some of these don't even look like they had anything stuck to the cover reveals a possibility they were given out without stickers, and or they had a bad batch of stickers.

And if we assume some of these may have quickly been stuck to the cover, and were just as easily unstuck immediately afterwards, that someone saw enough value in keeping it for provenancial reasons does not necessarily imply they were only thinking to keep it because they knew it would be valuable some day.

These photos are from past listings within the last two years and not all encompassing - check my previous post to see all the listings (thumbnail view) dating as far back as 2011. From memory, the example you posted was one of only three in the last 8 years that showed a botched removal, and the other two were not anywhere nearly as bad.

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by comicwiz

[GACollectibles]

32 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

• The book is legitimate, and is the result of an effective mistake at the time of production (i.e. a priced copy was used in error, with the sticker placement being out of character to other copies itself possibly being linked to the fact that the priced copy was used, maybe because the original supply was exhausted)
• The book was created as a wind up, long ago, using a self made sticker, by someone who wanted to see a debate like this unfold. To my mind, they would not have done it this way to make money had they had the good fortune to find an original unused sticker. They would have found a no price copy to stick the spare sticker on and made some money. 

 I think you can add a third scenario

• The was created post production without nefarious intentions (owner peels off sticker from All no price variant and sticks it on regular price because, well, it was Friday)
  
  At this point with the feedback and evidence I think while it is unlikely that it is a production result the slim chance remains it still could be one.  Any speculation at this point on scenario 2 & 3 is strictly speculation, there is next to no way to find out.  Maybe I'll take a ride back up there this fall and see if I can get more info, or possible find a no price variant in the same lot(I did not see one the first time BUT was not thorough in my search).
  
  I appreciate (almost all) the contributions to this thread and look forward to any other information that people might have.

[Get Marwood & I]

31 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

Seemingly quite high, as there are more without stickers than with - the example you used is one of very, very few which show a botched sticker removal. Many of them don't even show the residue of a sticker even being there. What we don't know is the adhesion strength of these stickers, and whether those without a sticker were deliberately removed as seeming unsightly, or whether they just peeled off on their own. I would guess the former.

It's also quite possible that they didn't produce enough stickers for what was supposedly a 5,000 comic print run.The way some of these don't even look like they had anything stuck to the cover reveals a possibility they were given out without stickers, and or they had a bad batch of stickers.

And if we assume some of these may have quickly been stuck to the cover, and were just as easily unstuck immediately afterward that someone saw enough value in keeping it for provenancial reasons, and not necessarily only thinking to keep it because they knew it would be valuable some day.

These photos are from past listings within the last two years and not all encompassing - check my previous post to see all the listings dating as far back as 2011. From memory, the example you posted was one of only three in the last 8 years that showed a botched removal, and the other two were not anywhere nearly as bad.

Some fair points there - my copy's previous owner was clumsy!.

As you say, maybe the stickerless copies never had stickers on them in the first place, explaining the lack of visible damage.