|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Aug 10, 2013 19:05:21 GMT -8
Missing PQ on label. link
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Aug 11, 2013 19:24:31 GMT -8
Way over-graded. Should be FR+ 1.5, not GD+ 2.5.
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Aug 25, 2013 16:35:39 GMT -8
Fake
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Apr 29, 2014 9:44:39 GMT -8
Subscription crease in a 6.0.
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Mar 16, 2016 17:27:54 GMT -8
CGC prototype "Sample" Slab
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Jun 6, 2016 12:16:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Siggy's Tar Dust® on Oct 29, 2016 8:49:36 GMT -8
Good thread. I hate gift grades. I'd feel I'm overpaying for a lower grade (if priced by the label), and if I tried to sell it I'd have to hope for someone who doesn't know better (not my style) or sell it for a loss.
|
|
MetalPSI™
TCBF Member
I don't make the internet, I just report it
Joined: March 2016
Posts: 2,742
|
Post by MetalPSI™ on Nov 12, 2016 21:18:41 GMT -8
Universal with sig....great book
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2016 10:15:03 GMT -8
Subscription crease in a 6.0. That used to be standard. Well into the 90's, Overstreet and others considered the top grade for a book with a sub crease (color breaking) to be "Fine." It's only since the advent of CGC that that hasn't been the case.
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Nov 25, 2016 11:08:57 GMT -8
Subscription crease in a 6.0. That used to be standard. Well into the 90's, Overstreet and others considered the top grade for a book with a sub crease (color breaking) to be "Fine." It's only since the advent of CGC that that hasn't been the case. I believe Overstreet always put max grade for sub creases at 3.0, as they do today. In my experience, dealer max grade varied between 2.0 to 4.0. I assume the loose CGC grade stems from the logic (if they are using any rather than just making stuff up) that this is a "type" of manufacturing error. If so, I would disagree based on the logic that shipping and handling damage, no matter how standardized, are post-manufacturing and do not warrant a grade variance. This is especially true since folded comics are only a small subset of the entire production run and are not representative of the whole.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2016 11:23:28 GMT -8
That used to be standard. Well into the 90's, Overstreet and others considered the top grade for a book with a sub crease (color breaking) to be "Fine." It's only since the advent of CGC that that hasn't been the case. I believe Overstreet always put max grade for sub creases at 3.0, as they do today. In my experience, dealer max grade varied between 2.0 to 4.0. I assume the loose CGC grade stems from the logic (if they are using any rather than just making stuff up) that this is a "type" of manufacturing error. If so, I would disagree based on the logic that shipping and handling damage, no matter how standardized, are post-manufacturing and do not warrant a grade variance. This is especially true since folded comics are only a small subset of the entire production run and are not representative of the whole. Definitely not true about the max that Overstreet put it at. After all, a 3.0 is a "G/VG." There's no one who would have put an otherwise F/VF, VF, or VF/NM as a G/VG just because of a sub crease. Sub creases were common, of course, for many books from the 60's and prior. Yes, there were (and are) a lot of people for whom sub creases are deal breakers, but if that's the only thing that's really wrong with the book, it isn't much worse than the regular look of a 5.0-6.0. And while it's certainly not manufacturing, it is an identifiable part of the "system" of decades gone by. I'll have to find out where I got that idea...I know I red it. Perhaps in the OPG Updates from the late 80's/early 90's. Where do you find the 3.0 "max grade" in the OPG? I can look at my OGG, 2nd edition, to see what Arnold said.
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Nov 25, 2016 12:02:18 GMT -8
I believe Overstreet always put max grade for sub creases at 3.0, as they do today. In my experience, dealer max grade varied between 2.0 to 4.0. I assume the loose CGC grade stems from the logic (if they are using any rather than just making stuff up) that this is a "type" of manufacturing error. If so, I would disagree based on the logic that shipping and handling damage, no matter how standardized, are post-manufacturing and do not warrant a grade variance. This is especially true since folded comics are only a small subset of the entire production run and are not representative of the whole. Definitely not true about the max that Overstreet put it at. After all, a 3.0 is a "G/VG." There's no one who would have put an otherwise F/VF, VF, or VF/NM as a G/VG just because of a sub crease. Sub creases were common, of course, for many books from the 60's and prior. Yes, there were (and are) a lot of people for whom sub creases are deal breakers, but if that's the only thing that's really wrong with the book, it isn't much worse than the regular look of a 5.0-6.0. And while it's certainly not manufacturing, it is an identifiable part of the "system" of decades gone by. I'll have to find out where I got that idea...I know I red it. Perhaps in the OPG Updates from the late 80's/early 90's. Where do you find the 3.0 "max grade" in the OPG? I can look at my OGG, 2nd edition, to see what Arnold said. Incorrect. 3.0 GOOD/VERY GOOD (GD/VG): A used comic book showing some substantial wear. Cover shows significant wear, and may be loose or even detached at one staple. Cover reflectivity is very low. Can have a book-length crease and/or dimples. Corners may be blunted or even rounded. Discoloration, fading, foxing, and even minor to moderate soiling is allowed. A triangle from 1/4" to 1/2" can be missing out of the corner or edge; a missing 1/8" to 1/4" square is also acceptable. Tape and other amateur repair may be present. Moderate spine roll likely. May have a spine split of anywhere from 1" to 1-1/2". Staples may be rusted or replaced. Minor to moderate staple tears and moderate stress lines may be present, as well as some rust migration. Paper is brown but not brittle. Centerfold may be loose or detached at one staple. Minor to moderate interior tears may be present. 2.0 to 4.0 was very common with pre-CGC dealers. That book is the poster child for inconsistency, useless diagrams and confusion. On page 268 it puts the max grade at 3.0 (this is the definition and criteria for the grade) ("Can have a book-length crease"), yet on page 261 it shows a 4.0 with a "full-length crease down the center of the cover" along with numerous other defects. On page 250 the definition and criteria for a 4.0 is listed as "Can have moderate creases...", which is obviously tighter than a book-length sub crease.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2016 12:23:42 GMT -8
Definitely not true about the max that Overstreet put it at. After all, a 3.0 is a "G/VG." There's no one who would have put an otherwise F/VF, VF, or VF/NM as a G/VG just because of a sub crease. Sub creases were common, of course, for many books from the 60's and prior. Yes, there were (and are) a lot of people for whom sub creases are deal breakers, but if that's the only thing that's really wrong with the book, it isn't much worse than the regular look of a 5.0-6.0. And while it's certainly not manufacturing, it is an identifiable part of the "system" of decades gone by. I'll have to find out where I got that idea...I know I red it. Perhaps in the OPG Updates from the late 80's/early 90's. Where do you find the 3.0 "max grade" in the OPG? I can look at my OGG, 2nd edition, to see what Arnold said. Incorrect. 3.0 GOOD/VERY GOOD (GD/VG): A used comic book showing some substantial wear. Cover shows significant wear, and may be loose or even detached at one staple. Cover reflectivity is very low. Can have a book-length crease and/or dimples. Corners may be blunted or even rounded. Discoloration, fading, foxing, and even minor to moderate soiling is allowed. A triangle from 1/4" to 1/2" can be missing out of the corner or edge; a missing 1/8" to 1/4" square is also acceptable. Tape and other amateur repair may be present. Moderate spine roll likely. May have a spine split of anywhere from 1" to 1-1/2". Staples may be rusted or replaced. Minor to moderate staple tears and moderate stress lines may be present, as well as some rust migration. Paper is brown but not brittle. Centerfold may be loose or detached at one staple. Minor to moderate interior tears may be present. 2.0 to 4.0 was very common with pre-CGC dealers. Look what it says: "Can have"...it doesn't say anything about "maxes out at." The language of the grade doesn't preclude sub-creases, which are a special kind of crease, in higher grades. And look what it DOES say: "Cover shows significant wear", and then goes on to INCLUDE "Can have a book-length crease"...meaning, in addition to the already significant cover wear already mentioned. It just says "Can have a book length crease" which includes sub-creases and all other "creases that are book length." In other words, just because the "book length crease" is mentioned doesn't mean 3.0 is the established upper limit for books with such a defect. Look at the qualitative language: "substantial"..."significant"...it's not until we get further into the definition that we start to see quantitative language, which is better. Where I lived and bought...California and Arizona...I don't think I ever encountered anyone who would say a sub crease, minus substantial other wear, was a 2.0. Good. And, almost universally, a 2.0 has so many other defects, a sub-crease would blend right in, and not even be considered much of a factor, outside of general overall appeal. So, you're saying the OGG 2nd edition has NO value of any kind...? "Max grade" is YOUR term, not theirs. If it doesn't say "can be no higher than", that would be a limiting factor. But it doesn't say that. And look at the example given: it's got all sorts of other problems BESIDES a sub-crease, serious problems like tears and small pieces missing, and yet, there it is, in the 4.0 range. Is it that much of a leap to consider that a book that might otherwise be a VF or higher with a sub-crease would be allowed as a "Fine"...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2016 12:31:50 GMT -8
That Showcase #22 is a perfect example of this. It looks, just from the scan, to be an 8.0-9.0. It's a beautiful book, without that sub-crease.
So, with the sub-crease, it gets knocked down to 6.0. Seems very reasonable to me, though I certainly understand why others who are bothered by sub-creases might have an issue with it.
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Nov 25, 2016 14:21:47 GMT -8
It does not allow that defect in 3.5 or 4.0; therefore 3.0 becomes an upper limit by the crazy omission style in which this grading guide is written. There are also inconsistencies "within" the Overstreet scale, as most people who've read it have discovered - but I'm not even getting into that here.
Example of Grading Scale by Omission of Reference:
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Defect X Allowed 2 Defect X Allowed 1 Defect X Allowed
Anyone using the above scale would naturally be led to the conclusion that Defect X is not allowed above 3.
|
|