Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2016 15:30:43 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. I totally understand your point, and see why you come to that conclusion, but I don't agree with it, because Arnold isn't trying to make a case for every possible scenario...he's talking about the average scenario or scenarios. As you point out, even with books from the 60's, sub-creases aren't "typical" (though they are common.) You're looking at it from an implicit point of view; that is, if it's explicitly mentioned in a particular grade, it is implicitly precluded above that, and I don't think that was Arnold's intent, at any time. And this isn't supposition; the very example you cited at 4.0 is evidence that there are flaws that may be explicitly mentioned at a particular level, but which aren't precluded above it. And, Arnold says essentially this on page 129: "The grade descriptions attempt to provide an overall view of the defects that can come into play throughout the scale. There are, of course, many other defects that are not mentioned specifically within those descriptions, but are just as important when determining grade." In other words, because a specific defect is mentioned in a specific grade, does not necessarily preclude that defect from appearing in higher grades. I remember these discussions on the eBay comics board we had at the time, and Arnold was soliciting opinions from us. I seem to remember that the language "such and such a defect can't appear above such and such a grade" was specifically mentioned as being something Arnold didn't want to do. He wanted the descriptions to be INclusive, rather than EXclusive.
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Nov 25, 2016 15:56:24 GMT -8
I know what you're saying, and I've heard it before from others.
If that was his intent, he failed miserably; as most interpret his meaning per my above post.
Example:
4.0 VERY GOOD (VG): The average used comic book. Cover shows moderate to significant wear, and may be loose but not completely detached. Cover reflectivity is low. Can have moderate creases or dimples. Corners may be blunted. Store stamps, name stamps, arrival dates, initials, etc. have no effect on this grade. Some discoloration, fading, foxing, and even minor soiling is allowed. As much as a 1/4" triangle can be missing out of the corner or edge; a missing 1/8" square is also acceptable. Only minor unobtrusive tape and other amateur repair allowed on otherwise high grade copies. Moderate spine roll may be present and/or a 1" spine split. Staples may be discolored. Minor to moderate staple tears and stress lines may be present, as well as some rust migration. Paper is brown but not brittle. Minor to moderate interior tears may be present. Centerfold may be loose or detached at one staple.
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.
By the above criteria, anyone using logic would be led to the conclusion that a book-length crease is not allowed in anything above 3.0.
Why?
a) It is explicitly mentioned in 3.0 and completely absent in 4.0. b) A book-length crease cannot be considered "moderate." It is obvious by the usage, that there is a deliberate differentiation between these two types of defects.
Further, why even HAVE a grading guide if this were not the case.
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Dec 8, 2016 19:32:24 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Dec 8, 2016 19:32:57 GMT -8
|
|
MetalPSI™
TCBF Member
I don't make the internet, I just report it
Joined: March 2016
Posts: 2,742
|
Post by MetalPSI™ on Dec 9, 2016 10:49:35 GMT -8
[/spoiler] A well within a well...not something I've ever seen before
|
|
MetalPSI™
TCBF Member
I don't make the internet, I just report it
Joined: March 2016
Posts: 2,742
|
Post by MetalPSI™ on Dec 9, 2016 10:50:36 GMT -8
And is this a really apparent trim job?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2016 11:06:02 GMT -8
And is this a really apparent trim job? No, it just looks like it was made that way. I've seen quite a few BA books like that. No one is going to "trim" that book like that to "restore" it.
|
|
MetalPSI™
TCBF Member
I don't make the internet, I just report it
Joined: March 2016
Posts: 2,742
|
Post by MetalPSI™ on Dec 10, 2016 7:49:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Dec 10, 2016 9:54:41 GMT -8
Link doesn't work.
|
|
MetalPSI™
TCBF Member
I don't make the internet, I just report it
Joined: March 2016
Posts: 2,742
|
Post by MetalPSI™ on Dec 10, 2016 11:19:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Dec 10, 2016 11:35:08 GMT -8
I just got an email about that.
|
|
MetalPSI™
TCBF Member
I don't make the internet, I just report it
Joined: March 2016
Posts: 2,742
|
Post by MetalPSI™ on Dec 10, 2016 11:45:13 GMT -8
Guy in the video sounds pretty special, but maybe on to something?
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Dec 10, 2016 15:00:11 GMT -8
Guy in the video sounds pretty special, but maybe on to something? I don't think he's 'special,' I just think he's relying on a gangsta' lexicon right now in his life and it's not serving him too well. I made an excerpt video of the IM55 section so it doesn't get lost.
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Feb 15, 2017 21:43:43 GMT -8
CGC Sample Slabs
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Aug 24, 2017 12:07:53 GMT -8
|
|