Not a CBCS member yet? Join now »
CBCS Comics
Not a CBCS member yet? Join now »

Good Morty Thead Redux- PLEASE Be Civil4650

COLLECTOR kaptainmyke private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atakmunky7




Post 451 • IP   flag post
Collector CaptainCanuck private msg quote post Address this user
@Atakmunky7

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atakmunky7
So will cbcs come to their senses and start calling the RaM comic book the 1st appearance of Rick and Morty again?


Just because CBCS can't grade it, does that mean it's no longer a first appearance?
Post 452 • IP   flag post
Collector CaptainCanuck private msg quote post Address this user
@SteveRicketts

Firstly, thank you Steve Ricketts. You've went above and beyond, your explanation was very thorough and explanatory.

Secondly,

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevericketts


4) Would someone counterfeiting a DVD set actually go to the trouble of counterfeiting a throwaway pamphlet?
In my honest opinion, no. They’d have no reason to reproduce the booklet. At the time these came out, the book was worthless and anyone buying the DVD/Blueray wouldn’t question the fact that it was a bootleg based on the fact that this worthless booklet was not included with their set. I suppose it’s possible, but in my opinion, not likely.

According to research by a couple of fellow board members here, it seems the contrary is true. Unless I'm mistaken, their research has showed that the two-staple version is only found along with counterfeit DVDs/Blurays.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevericketts

6) Can CBCS certify and encapsulate these?
Due to the fact that these can be so easily, and convincingly counterfeited, no.

Lastly, before concluding that the book can be so easily and convincingly counterfeited, are we sure that we've even ever seen a genuine copy?
Post 453 • IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Good to see confirmation of what has been said by others. Hopefully, the allegations of "fake" will subside, at least until more information is known. Pronouncing something "fake", and repeatedly referring to it as "fake", without having all the answers is not fair to anyone.

Because the answer for CBCS is the same that others have been saying: we don't know.

The next step is this: to contact whoever is responsible for producing these and find out exactly what happened, when, why, and how.

They hold the key to this whole situation.

If that is NOT done, CBCS will have no reason to change their stance, and these tracts will end up having no value for anyone. I'm not suggesting that CBCS' stand will change; on the contrary, it is almost certain that it will not. But if there is ANY hope at ALL, then some real scholarship is going to have to be done, or these will be forever consigned to the Gobbledygook realm of collecting: you're never going to know if the copy you bought is the real deal or not.
Post 454 • IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCanuck

According to research by a couple of fellow board members here, it seems the contrary is true. Unless I'm mistaken, their research has showed that the two-staple version is only found along with counterfeit DVDs/Blurays.


I'm not convinced that those "counterfeit" DVD/Blueray copies are actually counterfeit.

Couldn't an officially licensed producer make cheapo "looks like counterfeit" products...?

Given the coyness already displayed by "Madmen", I'd say it's a possibility.

A great deal of the "these are fake" arguments have hinged entirely on these things appearing in products that are "obviously counterfeit." The premise has been "counterfeit DVD, gotta be a counterfeit tract" (which, as I and others have argued, makes very little sense. While possible, it's certainly far outside the realm of probable.)

So what if those DVDs AREN'T counterfeit in the first place...?
Post 455 • IP   flag post


Collector CaptainCanuck private msg quote post Address this user

Post 456 • IP   flag post
COLLECTOR kaptainmyke private msg quote post Address this user
The truth is still found here: http://www.kaptainmyke.com/comics/goodmorty/goodmorty.htm

It's easy to spot fakes.
Post 457 • IP   flag post
Collector Garnett21k private msg quote post Address this user
Thanks Steve for the analysis!

What MY takeaway is this:

1.) Are the ones we called real in KaptainMyke's write up THE most likeliest real? Yes

2.) Do we know for a fact the ones we been calling fake are indeed fake? As Steve points out, No but at best 2nd Generation! Which to me means, I personally won't touch em with a 10 foot pole! To me irregardless they might as well be fake. That's just me! Even just from a quality perspective, having seen the 1st Gen one, it's no contest! It's amazing to see the richness of the solid black print vs muted!

3.) The notion that any of the ones that came with clearly re-writable black Blurays from Ebay not being fake to me is silliness! Though possible, not highly probable! Buying a lotto ticket and winning a 9 digit figure is possible. To be fair, I will concede that producing em to throw into said clearly fake ones is highly improbable as well. This to me will probably never be answered and will keep bugging me! lol

4.) For the most part, until Adult Swim and Warner Bros helps solve this, there's plenty enough loose ends for the "At Best 2nd Generation if not Fake" ones to be fully resolved.
Post 458 • IP   flag post
Collector CaptainCanuck private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnett21k

3.) The notion that any of the ones that came with clearly re-writable black Blurays from Ebay not being fake to me is silliness!

👆🏻 That
Post 459 • IP   flag post
Collector Savage_Spawn private msg quote post Address this user
@SteveRicketts
4) Would someone counterfeiting a DVD set actually go to the trouble of counterfeiting a throwaway pamphlet?
In my honest opinion, no. They’d have no reason to reproduce the booklet. At the time these came out, the book was worthless and anyone buying the DVD/Blueray wouldn’t question the fact that it was a bootleg based on the fact that this worthless booklet was not included with their set. I suppose it’s possible, but in my opinion, not likely.


Great and detailed analysis. Tracking the second generation will be hard.

But I must say I disagree with you on #4. Both Leggers and counterfeiters have produced "throw away booklets" going back decades. Some of these packages are extremely professionally done and can stand alone/apart in comparison to real product. I've seen booklets, pamphlets, posters, and all kind of printed perks in material a friend of mine has purchased for years.
Post 460 • IP   flag post
Collector Garnett21k private msg quote post Address this user



Did you guys notice the lines on the elephant? In the 1st Generation one, you can clearly see the lines. In the 2nd Gen one, it's just one solid object with no lines.
Post 461 • IP   flag post
CBCS Pressing SteveRicketts private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnett21k



Did you guys notice the lines on the elephant? In the 1st Generation one, you can clearly see the lines. In the 2nd Gen one, it's just one solid object with no lines.


You can still see them, but not as well. It's a loss of detail during the reproduction of the print. The easiest way to tell is in the darkest and lightest tonal points of the images. If you faithfully reproduce one end of the spectrum, you usually do so at the demise of the other end.

The second generation piece also has less ink density on the solid black areas, I didn't note this because the ink density can drift from piece to piece, and it could be darker in other reproductions.
Post 462 • IP   flag post
CBCS Pressing SteveRicketts private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage_Spawn
@SteveRicketts
4) Would someone counterfeiting a DVD set actually go to the trouble of counterfeiting a throwaway pamphlet?
In my honest opinion, no. They’d have no reason to reproduce the booklet. At the time these came out, the book was worthless and anyone buying the DVD/Blueray wouldn’t question the fact that it was a bootleg based on the fact that this worthless booklet was not included with their set. I suppose it’s possible, but in my opinion, not likely.


Great and detailed analysis. Tracking the second generation will be hard.

But I must say I disagree with you on #4. Both Leggers and counterfeiters have produced "throw away booklets" going back decades. Some of these packages are extremely professionally done and can stand alone/apart in comparison to real product. I've seen booklets, pamphlets, posters, and all kind of printed perks in material a friend of mine has purchased for years.


I can't say one way or the other. It's just my honest guess. All I can do with accuracy is to tell you that one of those booklets was created from raw digital files, and the other was created by scanning a printed booklet, rescreening the images, and reprinting it. Of that, I am certain.

I'm no bootleg DVD expert. I don't know for certain where the version B booklet came from, so I can't attest to the authenticity of it. But I do think it's entirely plausible that they were produced legitimately, so I can't rule that out.
Post 463 • IP   flag post
Collector Garnett21k private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRicketts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnett21k



Did you guys notice the lines on the elephant? In the 1st Generation one, you can clearly see the lines. In the 2nd Gen one, it's just one solid object with no lines.


You can still see them, but not as well. It's a loss of detail during the reproduction of the print. The easiest way to tell is in the darkest and lightest tonal points of the images. If you faithfully reproduce one end of the spectrum, you usually do so at the demise of the other end.

The second generation piece also has less ink density on the solid black areas, I didn't note this because the ink density can drift from piece to piece, and it could be darker in other reproductions.


Ah! That's a great way to describe it!(Darkest and lightest tonal points of the images)


I agree! Definitely could tell in the solid black areas!

Thanks, Steve! Really appreciate the analysis and opinion on this!
Post 464 • IP   flag post
COLLECTOR shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
Hopefully, the allegations of "fake" will subside,


FAKE. Absolutely and conclusively fake.

These two-staple booklets are being advertised and sold as original first prints. Steve has clearly stated the two-staple book is a scanned-printed version of the original.

Not original. Marketed as original for sale = FAKE
Post 465 • IP   flag post
COLLECTOR shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user
@Scorpion im not sure if CBCS will be sending my book back to you or me. If you get it, its yours, gratis 🍺
Post 466 • IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Again...calling any of them "fakes" without knowing the full story isn't science. It's religion. It's a matter of faith, not fact. "This is what I believe", rather than "this is what has been proven."

If you believe they are fakes, there's little that will change your mind. That's why it's called "faith."

But it's one thing to believe they're fakes, and another to say "yup. This is fake", when there are other possibilities that are plausible, and must be ruled out before any conclusions can be reached.

The reason the hobby knows that Cerebus #1 was faked was because the creator, Dave Sim, said so. Cerebus #1 was printed by someone who had access to original files back in 1982. I've seen the claim that they were printed from the original plates, but if that's the case, I don't think the print quality issues would exist. Suffice it to say, they did a pretty bang-up job on it, and probably would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those meddling ki...er, if they had used the correct cover stock. It was the quite obviously incorrect cover stock that did them in, and makes these easy to tell.

http://www.rogerogreen.com/2007/05/17/cerebus-1-the-counterfeit/

http://www.cerebusfangirl.com/counterfeit.php

But publishers, especially independent publishers, have reprinted books all the time, without informing anyone that they were doing so. Are there books that we KNOW were reprinted, but which are not marked as such...? Absolutely! Many, MANY underground comics were not marked "second printing", et al, and there are many articles dedicated to telling which printing is which.

For example: there are AT LEAST 21 different printings of Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers #1 (1971). And, to top it off, there are two different STATES of the first printing that are both acknowledged as first printings!

http://comixjoint.com/freakbrothers1-1st.html

So, Dave could very easily have reprinted Cerebus #1. Very easily. Reprints happen all the time. Again: reprints of comics have been made for decades. Marvel Comics #1 (1939) was reprinted (and the only way to tell the difference is the cover date, Oct vs. Nov.) Superman #1 (1939) was reprinted AT LEAST twice, and there's ZERO notification of that fact.

How many books were reprinted that the collecting community simply doesn't know about...? The answer IS NOT "zero."

In one of the more famous examples, Dark Knight #2 was reprinted...and there's no indication that it is a reprint. In fact, if it wasn't for the third printing, which is clearly marked "third printing", it's possible...probably not likely, but possible...that the second printing would never have been discovered. However, because the spotlight was on it when it came out, the differences in printings were established almost at the time of publication.

And even the existence of a "third" or later printing is not proof that second printings took place. "Wha...??? DocBrown, you are SMOKING something! How can there be a THIRD printing, with no SECOND printing...???"

Easy:







That is the first printing, and the third printing, of GI Joe #21. To everyone's knowledge...and there are some serious Joe fanatics out there...no one has ever found a second printing of this book. While it's true that a "reprint cover" with NO indication in the indicia would indicate a second printing, no such creature has ever been found.

So what happened...?

No one knows, or the people who do know aren't telling, or don't remember, or are dead.

Was it just human error? Possibly. Did they make a second printing that they scrapped? Possibly. All we DO know is that, after years and years of searching, no one has EVER found a Joe #21 that is either marked "second printing" or can clearly be identified as one.

Publishers don't care about the minutiae of the collector market. If they sell out of a certain book, and think they can sell more, and the reprint designation happens to get left off...they don't care.

But the reason we know that Dave DID NOT just reprint #1 is because he said so.

Cerebus #1, TMNT #1-2, Gobbledygook #1-2, Fugitoid #1, some even claim the Turtlemanias, all counterfeited.

CFD #1 as well.

However, in ALL these cases, the CREATORS of these comics were all asked about these books, and all of them....Eastman, Sim, Linsner...they all confirmed that yes, indeed, these were not authorized reprints, but counterfeits...fakes. And, at least in the case of Turtles #1 and #2, we KNOW the publisher DID reprint their own publications, AND there are counterfeits to boot!

That's what needs to be done here. Whoever was involved in creating these needs to be asked what happened. That's really the only way any definitive conclusions can be reached. Whoever was involved, that's the next step in this discussion.

By the way, there's even an X-Men #94 counterfeit floating around out there. Here's a picture of it:


Post 467 • IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrewbeer
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
Hopefully, the allegations of "fake" will subside,


FAKE. Absolutely and conclusively fake.

These two-staple booklets are being advertised and sold as original first prints. Steve has clearly stated the two-staple book is a scanned-printed version of the original.

Not original. Marketed as original for sale = FAKE


That's religion for you.
Post 468 • IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRicketts
3) Is one real and one counterfeit, or were they both produced by legitimate sources and included with real DVD/Bluray sets?
This question is impossible to answer. I can tell you that booklet A was produced from the raw image files, and that booklet B was produced by scanning booklet A and rescreening the file when it was printed. Is one of them counterfeit? It’s absolutely possible that the company producing legitimate DVD/Blurays ran out of booklets, lost the original digital files, scanned the first booklet and created more. I worked in the printing industry for 25 years and I can say, as farfetched as that sounds, it is entirely possible. That said, booklet A is more likely genuine. Booklet B is a “second printing” at best, and counterfeit at worst, but there is no way to tell for certain.


Note bolded section.
Post 469 • IP   flag post
COLLECTOR shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user
Btw for the record, not encapsulating the ones that CAN be authenticated as original copy from the original data file is ridiculous.
Post 470 • IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrewbeer
Btw for the record, not encapsulating the ones that CAN be authenticated as original copy from the original data file is ridiculous.


So you say. Steve Ricketts has already explained that high quality reproductions can be made, such that would be virtually indistinguishable from "the real ones."

Besides...how does anyone know the sample copies aren't BOTH fakes, and one is just higher quality than the other...?

I mean, with so many fakes out there, who can tell what's real, right...? It's all just so many fakes, fakes, fakes. Jan Brady would be proud.
Post 471 • IP   flag post
COLLECTOR kaptainmyke private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
Cerebus #1, TMNT #1-2, Gobbledygook #1-2, Fugitoid #1, some even claim the Turtlemanias, all counterfeited.


....Eastman, Sim, Linsner...they all confirmed that yes, indeed, these were not authorized reprints, but counterfeits...fakes. And, at least in the case of Turtles #1 and #2, we KNOW the publisher DID reprint their own publications, AND there are counterfeits to boot!


That's true too. I have seen the fakes for Gobbledygook and Turtlemania. But you still know they are fake in person.

I agree with shrewbeer though too - the original at maximum DPI is obviously a real one. CGC still grades the real TMNT 1 and TMNT 2 and Gobbedlygook and Turtlemanias though, too, don't they?



Post 472 • IP   flag post
Collector Redshade private msg quote post Address this user
@DocBrown

My jaw just dropped when I saw that counterfeit X-Men 94.
Do you have any other info about this ?
Post 473 • IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaptainmyke
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
Cerebus #1, TMNT #1-2, Gobbledygook #1-2, Fugitoid #1, some even claim the Turtlemanias, all counterfeited.


....Eastman, Sim, Linsner...they all confirmed that yes, indeed, these were not authorized reprints, but counterfeits...fakes. And, at least in the case of Turtles #1 and #2, we KNOW the publisher DID reprint their own publications, AND there are counterfeits to boot!


That's true too. I have seen the fakes for Gobbledygook and Turtlemania. But you still know they are fake in person.

I agree with shrewbeer though too - the original at maximum DPI is obviously a real one. CGC still grades the real TMNT 1 and TMNT 2 and Gobbedlygook and Turtlemanias though, too, don't they?


Let me be frank with you, and give credit where credit is due: I think the work you've done on trying to get to the truth of the matter has been admirable. You've put in a lot of effort, and even though I don't agree with your conclusion, you've still done a lot to question what is what, why, and how. That's more than most can say, and I respect your diligence in the matter, for whatever that respect is worth to you.

And you are correct: there's nothing like having examples IN HAND to see the differences for yourself. Someone can explain the differences til the cows come home, and still never quite convey it accurately, while having them in hand is "a HA! I totally see it now!" That's what I had to do with Cerebus #1 and CFD #1, and now I can easily tell them apart, too.

And I agree with you and SB in principle, that the ones that are provably real should be slabbed. The argument that a counterfeit might exist doesn't negate that.

For the record, CGC will not slab Gobbledygook.
Post 474 • IP   flag post
COLLECTOR kaptainmyke private msg quote post Address this user

Post 475 • IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshade
@DocBrown

My jaw just dropped when I saw that counterfeit X-Men 94.
Do you have any other info about this ?


Other than the date it was graded, 12/17/2008, no.

Here's a thread about it:

https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/topic/166741-x-men-94-counterfeit/

I laughed when I looked up the registration on the census. It's $8 for grader's notes.

For a counterfeit book.

lol
Post 476 • IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaptainmyke





You're one in a million, fo sho!
Post 477 • IP   flag post
COLLECTOR kaptainmyke private msg quote post Address this user
Same.
Post 478 • IP   flag post
Collector DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user
lol

No credit for the credit given. Gotcha.
Post 479 • IP   flag post
Collector IntoAnother private msg quote post Address this user
Spoke with Justin yesterday and today about The Good Morty. He was aware fakes were floating around. As soon as it was brought up he asked me “Do you know how to tell the real ones from the fakes?” In which he answered the question right along with me stating “The real ones only have one staple.”

Of course more has to be backing that determination but it’s a start from Justin himself. He also stated he will be helping the grading company in whatever way he can. How or in what way I’m not sure but that’s pretty awesome of him.

Awesome con by the way!
Post 480 • IP   flag post
139145 571 30
Thread locked. No more posts permitted. Return home.
destitute