|
|
Post by Defiant1 on Sept 21, 2009 17:27:58 GMT -5
Any opinions on this? I'd like to own one.   Defiant1 |
|
|
|
Post by gowaltrip on Sept 21, 2009 20:27:37 GMT -5
What's the scoop on this? What makes it counterfeit? Was it intentionally counterfeit? In other words, was it known counterfeit up front? Or as in most cases of counterfeit, it was meant to deceit?
Seems in a case like this it would be a lot of work to counterfeit a book that wouldn't make a big difference legitimately long term to your life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defiant1 on Sept 21, 2009 22:40:31 GMT -5
What's the scoop on this? What makes it counterfeit? Was it intentionally counterfeit? In other words, was it known counterfeit up front? Or as in most cases of counterfeit, it was meant to deceit? Seems in a case like this it would be a lot of work to counterfeit a book that wouldn't make a big difference legitimately long term to your life. Good questions. They are the same ones I asked. These pictures appeared on another board and I don't have the answers. I assume it would be near impossible to accurately reproduce a comic from 1976 since the same exact paper we remember isn't even made today. Also, aren't they a grading service? When did they become the comic book police? So what if it's counterfeit. It's still a comic book and I'd want a d**n grade on it if I sent it in. Last but not least, I think it would be funny as hell if this ended up being a legitimate Marvel reprint that came with a toy or something. Defiant1 |
|
|
|
Post by superggraphics on Sept 21, 2009 22:58:11 GMT -5
It most likely came with one of the Toy Biz toy figures (most likely the Marvel Legends series). There are a lot of them out there. I'll do some research on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defiant1 on Sept 21, 2009 23:05:44 GMT -5
Marvel did some reprint packs of comics in the 90's and a novice would think the books were an original. It'd be funny if this was one from those packs. I was hoping it was going to be part of this set... stlcomics.com/gallery/jcpenney_stridex/Metarog... if you are reading this thread.... I'm almost positive the 1994 set on that page was available from Diamond. I remember them being in the local comic shop shrunk wrapped all in one stack with maybe a cover sleeve over them. I own the X-Men reprints from that set and they would fool a lot of people. Defiant1 |
|
|
|
Post by gowaltrip on Sept 22, 2009 15:24:04 GMT -5
If it is a reprint or a promo comic that came with some item, it should state that and be graded as such and NOT be labeled "counterfeit". Its just not an original X-Men #94.
I agree regardless if it is counterfeit or not, it should receive a grade. It looks like its about a NM copy. So it could just state something like "X-Men #94, Counterfeit copy (or insert promo or reprint info) 9.6". As long as "Counterfeit is somewhere on the case, it would notify people what it is. Seems "counterfeit" bypasses grading??? Why even put it in a case if it receives "No grade"? I'll bet they expect you to pay for that "No Grade" and casing just like any other comic!
But if it is a promo or a reprint, it aint counterfeit either?!!! It just aint a true X-Men #94. Counterfeit shouldn't appear anywhere on something like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defiant1 on Sept 22, 2009 17:42:22 GMT -5
I don't think of the CGC graders as being the brightest people.
Defiant1
|
|
|
|
Post by VaultKeeper on Sept 22, 2009 21:52:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Defiant1 on Sept 22, 2009 23:01:25 GMT -5
That is a boring d**n thread.
defiant1
|
|
|
|
Post by VaultKeeper on Sept 23, 2009 8:56:37 GMT -5
I found the list of counterfeits interesting. I wonder what the grader's notes for the X-Men issue are.
|
|
|
|
Post by gowaltrip on Sept 23, 2009 11:07:29 GMT -5
I managed to read about 6-7 pages into it. It is pretty boring. Some of the posters are drool in that thread.
The thread opens up far more questions than I could find answers for. The fact CGC slabbed this is disturbing to me. And if they did other counterfeits before, thats disturbing too.
I dont know how deep that thread got into the subject, but someone mentioned taking a low grade copy, ripping the cover off and then photocopying or whatever a NM copy of the cover. Slapping it together and blam! Is that restoration or is it counterfeiting? Does counterfeiting mean the whole thing is reproduced or only part of it?
While having a restored comic is certainly not as desirable as the real thing, it has become a respected practice that receives actual grades and legitimate sales for large sums of money.
I feel counterfeit blurs the line. Unless 100% of the comic is reproduced. Than Im okay with counterfeit. But if part of the comic is real, it gets real blurry for me there.
Im sorry if this was brought up in the thread. Like I said, I only got about 7 pages into it. And this part wasn't brought up. I couldn't read 28 pages of that. But the more I did read it, the more I had questions popping into my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by metarog on Sept 23, 2009 16:48:26 GMT -5
Marvel did some reprint packs of comics in the 90's and a novice would think the books were an original. It'd be funny if this was one from those packs. I was hoping it was going to be part of this set... stlcomics.com/gallery/jcpenney_stridex/Metarog... if you are reading this thread.... I'm almost positive the 1994 set on that page was available from Diamond. I remember them being in the local comic shop shrunk wrapped all in one stack with maybe a cover sleeve over them. I own the X-Men reprints from that set and they would fool a lot of people. Defiant1 A few others have mentioned this as a possibility as well. I still look for them online just to see if there is complete set in a shrinkwrap or box. I have seen the JC Penney catalog set in a box but if you are anyone ever sees a DS set please let me know so I can amend my write-up. You are right in that if you only see it from the front cover the 1994 set is almost impossible to distinquish from the original. |
|
|
|
Post by gowaltrip on Sept 23, 2009 19:46:37 GMT -5
You are right in that if you only see it from the front cover the 1994 set is almost impossible to distinquish from the original. If it was from that set, I wouldn't consider that counterfeit, I would just consider it a reproduction. If it was sent in for grading, it could be labeled that way (X-Men #94 Reproduction) and properly graded. Counterfeit seems to indicate its made to dupe people into believing it is the real thing when it isn't. I would actually be happy if it came from the JCPenney set. I would just feel it doesn't deserve the word "counterfeit". |
|
|
|
Post by VaultKeeper on Sept 23, 2009 20:30:40 GMT -5
You are right in that if you only see it from the front cover the 1994 set is almost impossible to distinquish from the original. If it was from that set, I wouldn't consider that counterfeit, I would just consider it a reproduction. If it was sent in for grading, it could be labeled that way (X-Men #94 Reproduction) and properly graded. Counterfeit seems to indicate its made to dupe people into believing it is the real thing when it isn't. I would actually be happy if it came from the JCPenney set. I would just feel it doesn't deserve the word "counterfeit". According to the indicia in the reprints, most are stated as second prints. There seems to be exceptions in each set. But, for the most part, C.G.C. should slab these according to the indicia. |
|
|
|
Post by gowaltrip on Sept 23, 2009 20:59:26 GMT -5
I'm cool with that.
Wouldn't a counterfeit copy have X-Men #94 on the indicia? Indicating that this one is trying to make you feel like you have the real thing?
If it says X-Men #94 2nd print, than it should say that on the indicia as well (I have a 2nd print comic that is slabbed and it does indicate it on the label as it should).
A 2nd print isn't counterfeit though....
|
|
|
|
Post by Defiant1 on Sept 23, 2009 21:36:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by gowaltrip on Sept 23, 2009 22:48:11 GMT -5
That thread was a lot easier to read and I feel it had some of the same questions we have here. But I'm not sure if anything has been answered. I've never once cared about counterfeit comics, but this one seemed to have bothered me the more I seen it and thought about it. I dont know why really. Being I never cared, I don't know the extent of how many comics are counterfeit, but I do know that being able to spot one is a great service to other collectors.
I know for Cerebus and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, there is text inserted in the price guide to help identify a counterfeit copy from a real one. But I haven't really studied up on them either. I'd have to assume that for the most part, you'd think you were holding the real thing if you ever came across one. And if you didn't know what to look for you would be fooled. So I'd have to feel like in almost every way, it seems like the real thing and not just some home made Xeroxed copy that's well done visually but easy to tell once in your hands. Perhaps someone with access to a printing press and was able to replicate paper qualities to a great degree. That to me would be a 100% totally unoriginal product in every way but totally believable as the real thing.
What further bothers me is where does counterfeiting begin and restoration end? Does counterfeit mean 100% unoriginal? Are there any counterfeit comics that have original pieces at all, such as interiors??? An original interior with a unauthentic cover would seem like a coverless restoration project instead of a counterfeit comic. This got me to thinking where is it posted what constitutes what???
And to me, 2nd prints, reprints, promos, reproductions, ect are to me in no way counterfeit nor do I believe should be labeled as counterfeit. They should be labeled whatever they truly are. They just shouldnt be labeled as original versions though.
I guess what bothers me is if the job of this X-Men #94 was done truly well. What is to stop someone from cracking open the slab and selling it as an original? And since no info as to how it was identified as counterfeit is released (right???), one wouldn't know what to look for. Furthermore, that books looks pretty legit in the photos. If you cracked that open and scanned it and put it on ebay, you could say X-Men #94 in NM CONDITION!!! And it looks good enough in the photo that one could easily fall for it. Now maybe once you get it, it might be easy to see its counterfeit. But as is, the way it looks in the photo looks like it would be easy to scan and put on ebay without anyone thinking twice about it. It certainly looks better than the X-Men #94 I have.
It's just a bit disturbing to me that the best anyone wants to do is slap a NG label on it with the word counterfeit and offer no one any info how to spot it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defiant1 on Sept 23, 2009 23:09:37 GMT -5
Only in the past 10 years or so has it been feasible to produce a full color reproduction of a comic. The cost was prohibitive and the making it look like an original was near impossible. The older counterfeit comics you hear about were color covers over B&W interiors. The B&W interiors made printing it a lot cheaper. Today, they don't manufacture the same kind of paper that was used in the 70's. Whatever this is, it'd be obvious to you and me if we opened it. Also, if this was a normal edition with say a xerox cover, that should not be called counterfeit.
Defiant1
|
|
|
|
Post by VaultKeeper on Sept 24, 2009 8:50:25 GMT -5
The talk on the C.G.C. board was in regards to the buyer popping it open to sell as original. It makes me wonder if they missed any already. Also, what would have happened if they sent one to PGX.....a Universal 9.8?
|
|
|
|
Post by gowaltrip on Sept 24, 2009 10:31:20 GMT -5
The talk on the C.G.C. board was in regards to the buyer popping it open to sell as original. It makes me wonder if they missed any already. Also, what would have happened if they sent one to PGX.....a Universal 9.8? That's just it....was it EASY to tell or not? Sure you expect C.G.C. to find it. But just how good was this "counterfeit"? The lack of info about it irks me. |
|
|
|
Post by VaultKeeper on Sept 26, 2009 8:31:11 GMT -5
The talk on the C.G.C. board was in regards to the buyer popping it open to sell as original. It makes me wonder if they missed any already. Also, what would have happened if they sent one to PGX.....a Universal 9.8? That's just it....was it EASY to tell or not? Sure you expect C.G.C. to find it. But just how good was this "counterfeit"? The lack of info about it irks me. I wrote to the seller, and it's photo-copied. Probably very easy to ID out of its slab. |
|
|
|
Post by Defiant1 on Sept 26, 2009 8:44:20 GMT -5
That's just it....was it EASY to tell or not? Sure you expect C.G.C. to find it. But just how good was this "counterfeit"? The lack of info about it irks me. I wrote to the seller, and it's photo-copied. Probably very easy to ID out of its slab. No more detail than that? Someone could scan the book and do a nice "print on demand" version. To take it to a copy machine and try to do the same wouldn't work. Defiant1 |
|
|
|
Post by VaultKeeper on Sept 26, 2009 9:19:57 GMT -5
I wrote to the seller, and it's photo-copied. Probably very easy to ID out of its slab. No more detail than that? Someone could scan the book and do a nice "print on demand" version. To take it to a copy machine and try to do the same wouldn't work. Defiant1 No, he just said the entire thing was a photocopy. Hence the NG Counterfeit label. (at least one of the staples has to be original for it to be considered restoration.....ha ha, I kid...) |
|
|
|
Post by Defiant1 on Sept 26, 2009 10:43:07 GMT -5
No more detail than that? Someone could scan the book and do a nice "print on demand" version. To take it to a copy machine and try to do the same wouldn't work. Defiant1 No, he just said the entire thing was a photocopy. Hence the NG Counterfeit label. (at least one of the staples has to be original for it to be considered restoration.....ha ha, I kid...) Why would he even send it in? Testing the CGC again? Defiant1 |
|
|
|
Post by gowaltrip on Sept 26, 2009 10:51:45 GMT -5
Thats even more disappointing. C.G.C. should have just sent it back and said "we only do comics not photocopies". Slabbing a photocopy just legitimized his work.  |
|
|
|
Post by Defiant1 on Sept 26, 2009 13:47:50 GMT -5
Thats even more disappointing. C.G.C. should have just sent it back and said "we only do comics not photocopies". Slabbing a photocopy just legitimized his work. I agree! They are pathetic. Defiant1 |
|
