• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Apparently I tried to trick people - No longer for sale
0

21 posts in this topic

 

Had a 10.0 X-Men from 1991 for sale but I apparently didn’t word anything properly based on feedback of other board members. Made it sound like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. It is a garbage issue that nobody wants - so I’ll just burn it. 
 

****soooooooo misleading I can’t imagine how I have such great feedback will all my other previous sales and purchases. 


Love how some continue to criticize after I made changes to clarify. I should have just brought rope and rocks for a public hanging. Jezzzz. Talk about beating a dead horse. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by TICTICBOOM
No longer for sale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ChasingKingKirby said:

That's a really cool book!  Aren't their 10.0s in Uncanny?  I think issue 160 has a 10.

According to the census it does; I'd bet there's several more Uncanny 10.0s that predate this book.  This is the oldest 10.0 from the 1991 series though. 

@TICTICBOOM - you may want to clarify your post a little better to avoid confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, valiantman said:

X-Men issues with a CGC 10 older than X-Men #3:

Uncanny X-Men #156, #160, #167, #177, #188, #197, #214, #257, #274, #281

Uncanny X-Men #283 and X-Men #3 are both dated 12/1991, and both are outside the Top 10 Oldest CGC 10 X-Men.

 

So, this is the oldest 10 of the 1991 series essentially.  And there aren’t any 10s of the 1963 series.   So oldest 10 of a series specifically titled “X-men”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, ChasingKingKirby said:

That's a really cool book!  Aren't their 10.0s in Uncanny?  I think issue 160 has a 10.

Yes, but I just stated oldest of any titled “X-Men” 

Uncanny starts in 1981 and yes there are a few that are mint as mentioned by some members in this thread. You have to search under “Uncanny X-Men” to find the mints. I understand their point though. 
 

I was simply stating oldest of any where you go into the CGC Census and search under the original or later series titled only “X-Men”. The Jim Lee covers are the best in my opinion. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically it was #114 in Oct of  1978 - when the rebranding occurred , but the entire series was essentially retconned to be known as “ Uncanny “ .....similar to the other Runs with “ Mighty” and “ Invincible “ involving Thor and IM respectively ... NOT nitpicking , just my 2c

Edited by Old_Man_Adam
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, mattn792 said:

According to the census it does; I'd bet there's several more Uncanny 10.0s that predate this book.  This is the oldest 10.0 from the 1991 series though. 

@TICTICBOOM - you may want to clarify your post a little better to avoid confusion.

Changed to avoid confusion. I did originally state that this is the oldest 10.0 title”X-Men”...not “Uncanny X-Men”...but I see your point since Uncanny was a continuation of the original series. Thanks guys for your input. I do sincerely appreciate. Love this board! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TICTICBOOM said:
45 minutes ago, mattn792 said:

According to the census it does; I'd bet there's several more Uncanny 10.0s that predate this book.  This is the oldest 10.0 from the 1991 series though. 

@TICTICBOOM - you may want to clarify your post a little better to avoid confusion.

Changed to avoid confusion. I did originally state that this is the oldest 10.0 title”X-Men”...not “Uncanny X-Men”...but I see your point since Uncanny was a continuation of the original series. Thanks guys for your input. I do sincerely appreciate. Love this board!

Good idea to change it - you can see the problem with your original when you consider what it would mean if you'd said you had the oldest CGC 10 for "Spider-Man" if you ignored "Amazing", "Spectacular", "Web Of"... and pretended they weren't "Spider-Man" titles. :foryou:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mattn792 said:

Comparing the 1963 series to the 1991 series is very disingenuous imho.

You are entitled to your opinion. If you knew me personally - I am not a deceiver. I fixed to avoid any confusion for those that cannot get past the fact that I originally stated it is the oldest 10.0 titled “X-Men”...only “X-Men”. You have to go into the registry and search under “Uncanny X-Men” to find older mints (but the titles that are older and are also mints are under “Uncanny X-Men” and not “X-Men”). 


I can see your point and I corrected immediately. 

 

Edited by TICTICBOOM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TICTICBOOM said:

You are entitled to your opinion. If you knew me personally - I am not a deceiver. I fixed to avoid any confusion for those that cannot get past the fact that I originally stated it is the oldest 10.0 titled “X-Men”...only “X-Men”. You have to go into the registry and search under “Uncanny X-Men” to find older mints (but the titles that are older and are also mints are under “Uncanny X-Men” and not “X-Men”). 


Thanks for calling my post disingenuous - you could have kept that to yourself. Everything else I can see your point and I corrected immediately. 

 

I already edited :gossip:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, ChasingKingKirby said:

So, this is the oldest 10 of the 1991 series essentially.  And there aren’t any 10s of the 1963 series.   So oldest 10 of a series specifically titled “X-men”.

Yes - absolutely correct and my initial intentions to convey. I added clarification. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, valiantman said:

Good idea to change it - you can see the problem with your original when you consider what it would mean if you'd said you had the oldest CGC 10 for "Spider-Man" if you ignored "Amazing", "Spectacular", "Web Of"... and pretended they weren't "Spider-Man" titles. :foryou:

Understood. Thank you all for your input. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TICTICBOOM said:

Yes, but I just stated oldest of any titled “X-Men” 

 

 

Definitely misleading and it becomes a bit more trivial when you have to precise it that way, especially with quotation marks, removing any added wow factor. It being a 10 is amazing enough, you don't have to add more to it.

Edited by William-James88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, William-James88 said:

Definitely misleading and it becomes a bit more trivial when you have to precise it that way, especially with quotation marks, removing any added wow factor. It being a 10 is amazing enough, you don't have to add more to it.

Yup

 

Just let the label speak for itself.  No need for a song and dance around these  parts. 2c

Link to comment
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
0