ImaPaqRat's forum posts

  • 17 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for imapaqrat
#1 Posted by ImaPaqRat (26 posts) - - Show Bio

Hello,

This is probably obvious to some of you but I haven't been able to find out what the 3rd variation is for the DC #0 comics.

I've noticed 3 different variations on the 1994 DC #0 Beginning of Tomorrow comics. There is the Direct Sale and the Newsstand editions, which are obvious with their bar-codes; but then there is a third variation that has the Zero Hour logo where the bar-code should be. The indicia on all 3 look identical. Can somebody tell me what that third variation is? I've included a picture of the 3 Superboy, but I've also seen it on a few of the other #0 titles as well.

No Caption Provided

Thanks,

Bruce "ImaPaqRat" Fisher

Avatar image for imapaqrat
#2 Edited by ImaPaqRat (26 posts) - - Show Bio

The Legend of Zelda 1990 comics: 5 issue series and 7 issue series: Confusing!? [My bad . . . the 7th issue is actually the 7th issue of the Nintendo Comic Systems, so both series only have 5 issues, but there are still have a lot of differences in those 5 issues.]

Does anybody have any details about the two Legend of Zelda comic series published in 1990 / 1991 by Valiant. Some issues share the same cover art, but some issues swap cover art from one series to the other.

No Caption Provided

Even thought the indicia are identical for the Vol. #, No. #, and ISSN #; the 5 issue series just has the year (1990) while the 7 issue series has the month and year (Feb. 1991 for Issue #1).

The paper stock is different, the advertising is different . . . there is a lot of difference but I can’t find any details about there being 2 actual series.

I have also noticed that even Mile High Comic has mixed the two series on their page.

Just wondering if anybody has any documentation about the two different series and why there were two runs?

Thanks,

Bruce “ImaPaqRat” Fisher

Here is a sample if Issues 1 & 5 from both series:

Avatar image for imapaqrat
#3 Edited by ImaPaqRat (26 posts) - - Show Bio

I've notice people selling Thanos Quest Newsstand edition and the scans of the front and back cover look identical to my covers. I know how to tell if it is 1st or 2nd print by the number on the bottom of the 2nd page, but how do you identify the Newsstand edition?

Any help would be much appreciated.

Avatar image for imapaqrat
#4 Posted by ImaPaqRat (26 posts) - - Show Bio

@seriousnerd: Do you happen to have the auction number, title, or link?

I've searched for "Hellboy Imperial Toy", "Hellboy Stretchy" and "Hellboy Rubber" and found nothing in the completed auctions.

Avatar image for imapaqrat
#5 Edited by ImaPaqRat (26 posts) - - Show Bio

V_Scarlotte_Rose,

Thanks for the reply, at least I know I'm not the only one that found nothing.

Take care.

Avatar image for imapaqrat
#6 Posted by ImaPaqRat (26 posts) - - Show Bio

Hmmmm . . . 10 days and not a single comment.

Avatar image for imapaqrat
#7 Posted by ImaPaqRat (26 posts) - - Show Bio

The other day I got a chance to go to a garage / storage unit sale where there was a bunch Dark Horse stuff, which being in the Portland area wasn’t a huge surprise.

In one box full of miscellaneous items I found a Hellboy item that I have never seen before. I've spent some time on the web, trying to find anything about it, but can't find a single mention of it anywhere.

It is a 6½ inch rubber, stretchy Hellboy Toy from Imperial Toy, 2008. It has a Universal Studio TM. I have attached a picture. Has anybody ever heard / seen this before?

Any reply would be appreciated.

Bruce “ImaPaqRat” Fisher

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for imapaqrat
#8 Posted by ImaPaqRat (26 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheWitchingHour: The difference between the condition of the comics at 9.2 to 9.6 may be insignificant to most people, but the price that they demand can be huge depending on the actual comic. I believer that at least 5 of the Dime Press #4 I sent in should have gotten a 9.8 (or better) which would have made them the Highest Graded for that issue and would have demanded a premium price. As it stands they came back with 9.6s. I didn't included the scans of the 9.6s I got back. Talk about NM+++

All and all CGC had 15 copies of Near Mint Dime Press #4 to grade for me and they all seemed to be .2 to .4 below what they should have graded. In my opinion costing me thousands in potential sales value.

Feel free to forward this link to anybody that might be interested but isn't part of comic vine:

http://www.imapaqrat.com/pages/CGCgoof

Thanks again for the comments.

Avatar image for imapaqrat
#9 Posted by ImaPaqRat (26 posts) - - Show Bio

Thank you for your comments. Hectorsquall, I definitely will NOT be ever using CGC again. I am still amazed that a company that is so vocal about being the biggest comic grading service can be so BAD at what they do and not care.

One last thing, their form estimates a 4 week turn around. It took 12 weeks.

How can they still be in business?

Avatar image for imapaqrat
#10 Posted by ImaPaqRat (26 posts) - - Show Bio

Here is my question: Is CGC really 'THAT BAD' at grading comics; or, do they just grade lower for people / groups they don't know?

I had heard stories about CGC playing favors by giving harder grades to comics that were submit by unknowns sources, but I didn't want to believe those stories. Unfortunately my personal results make it hard not believer them. Either they are playing favorites or their graders really don't know how to grade. You can be the judge.

Below are front and back scans of 3 different Dime Press #4 (1st Appearance of Hellboy) comics that CGC graded. Take a look and then give me your opinion of their grading consistency. You can click on the Scan images to pull up a High Resolution image in a new Browser Tab!

The 1st 2 scans are CGC Label #0152098001 (referred to as 98001): It was graded on May 2008 by CGC as a 9.4 with notes about scuffs on the front and back cover. I do not know who actually had it graded, but it sold recently on eBay and that is where I got the scans. I also communicated with the winning bidder and they confirmed that the book was scuffed, not the plastic case.



The 2nd 2 scans are CGC Label #189332004 (referred to as 32004): It was graded on April 2012 by CGC as a 9.2 with notes about scuffs on the front cover. I submit this book and based on the 98001 copy was expecting a 9.6 or better. You tell me, are the scuffs on my copy worse than 98001 copy.



The 3rd 2 scans are CGC Label #189332010 (referred to as 32010): It too was graded on April 2012 by CGC and was given a 9.4 with notes about scuffs on the front cover. I submit this book and again based on the 98001 copy was expecting a 9.6 or better. This got the same CGC grade 98001 copy!! I'm still dumbfounded by their biased grading.



Just a little more background. I had (have) over 120 copies of Dime Press #4 to choose from to send to CGC for grading. About 1/2 of them I bought years ago directly from somebody in Italy that had an unopened case of them. These were never read, never opened and only handled to move them from the case to the protective boards/sleeve. I picked the best 15 copies I had and none of them graded better than 9.6 and 1/2 of them graded at 9.4 or 9.2; at or below the badly scuffed 98001 copy I was using as my baseline.

When I contacted CGC with my concerns and sent them copies of the scans, here was their reply:
"I spoke to one of our graders that pre-graded your books and forwarded these images to them for review. They stated that the grades given are commensurate with the scuffs as per these images and is consistent with our standards. I am sorry that you do not agree, but as I stated earlier, when you submit your comics for grading to us you are paying for our opinion and that opinion stands on these comics."
There was absolutely no mention as to how the badly scuffed 98001 copy happened to a better grade than my 32004 copy.

So if you would take a few minutes to look at the scans and give me your thoughts about CGC's grading of the books it would be very much appreciated.

Please feel free to contact me with comments.
Thanks,
Bruce "DadRat" Fisher

  • 17 results
  • 1
  • 2