Amazing Cider-Man

I don't have many signed slabs, but I do have a Spidey...

On 8/29/2021 at 1:38 PM, kav said:

I've heard things.   Things.

As someone who has purchased several NYC bridges, I find that disturbing.

On 8/29/2021 at 12:18 PM, Buzzetta said:

 

I think Torpedo Comics will be okay.

Doesn't change the fact that it was done.

Right now he wins because he got what he wanted, but he'll also be the one who loses if/when he decides to sell it.

On 8/26/2021 at 6:47 PM, jcjames said:

He keeps his hands flat on the table like he's about to do a magic trick 

Yep... he's about to make someone's hopes disappear!

On 8/26/2021 at 3:58 PM, valiantman said:

I don't believe CGC includes grader notes (very often) for 9.8. 

CGC 9.9 and 10 are unicorns, most likely because the books are scrutinized so heavily that fingerprints are likely to downgrade a book. 

While the law of averages might say there should be "more 9.9s", the tiny number of people using gloves would say "nope, it's about right".  

Exactly! They basically grade without impunity!

Maybe if they actually wore gloves there would be more 9.9's out there..

On 8/26/2021 at 11:32 AM, valiantman said:

The odds do improve, particularly if the materials used are high quality.  40% of CGC graded copies of Batman: Damned #1 (2018) are CGC 9.9 or higher.  That was 60% at CGC 9.9 or higher in the first month after the book was released.

The main problem with CGC 9.9 and CGC 10 is that the printing process isn't exact.  There's usually some flaw in printing/folding/cutting/stapling/sliding/stacking/boxing at high speeds that is evident on the book, even the moment the ink dries.  The process itself doesn't make perfect books, and they usually get worse as time passes.

After Batman Damned I seriously thought we'd start to see more 9.9's. I get your points and I think we're basically on the same page. I would add that just like a 9.8, a 9.9 still leaves us room for perfection with that elusive 10 spot. Do we really need 2 unicorns?

I can't disagree about the printing process because I don't have any personal experience but even if publishers, despite modern technology, still managed to account for a significant percentage of imperfections, we're talking about an industry that pumps out millions upon millions of books each year.The law of averages alone should give us more 9.9's. Does CGC put printing flaws in the graders notes for a 9.8? Are there actually millions of 9.8's out there with that distinction in the grader's notes? .

On 8/26/2021 at 10:48 AM, valiantman said:

We'd just shift the nitpicking to another grade.

Can't argue that. The thing is, a 9.8 isn't perfect and books like that Surfer are worthy. It's more about elevating other books to that next level. The odds of receiving a worthy 9.9 should vastly improve on an uncirculated book that came out on Wednesday.

On 8/26/2021 at 12:46 AM, lou_fine said:

 

After looking at so many of the Promise Collection scans consigned by Heritage which other boardies have posted with nosebleed high grades and yet exhibiting clear visual defects, exactly what are you guys seeing wrong with this Silver Surfer 4 to say that it is not a CGC 9.8 worthy book?  

Especially when you have to realize that grading is still really nothing more than a subjective opinion (albeit a so-called expert one) at a particular point in time when it crosses a grader's table.  Grading is definitely nowhere close to an exact science, and as such, it is normal to expect an acceptable grading margin of error.  The main concern which I have here is that their margin of error definitely appears to be rather quite wide right now, especially in the case of the Promise Collection books.  

Which then raises the question of why some bidders would pay multiples more for a book that might be graded only 1 or 2 increments higher, but then again, more power to them for having that kind of faith since I guess it's really a case of to each their own.  

I had a feeling someone would misinterpret the point I was trying to make. Apologies if the message wasn't clear. I'm not saying the Surfer isn't a worthy 9.8 and I agree with you. What I'm saying is I can see why people would question certain 9.8's when you put them side by side with a brand new, razor sharp release that receives the same grade..This isn't because the Surfer isn't worthy, it is, but if 9.9's weren't such a rarity maybe we'd stop treating 9.8 as king and nitpicking some books that receive them. . ..

I do prefer slabs for Bronze and Modern books that have potential to rise in value unless they're already crazy priced. I'll buy the occasional Silver slab if I don't already have it and it presents well in a lower grade. BUT when it comes to the majority of Silver I prefer raw. I have a lot of F/VF Silver that looks great especially to the average person. I think it's human nature to look at a comic over 50 years old with very forgiving eyes, especially my friends and family who don't collect and think they're all mint because they're so old and not mangled. I also like not having the stigma of a grade possibly limiting my enjoyment because some company dissected every single nuance and found something under a microscope.

I personally feel that a lot of questionable 9.8's would be more acceptable in that grade if CGC wasn't so stingy with giving out 9.9's. I think most of us have become comfortable with 9.8's being the be-all end-all. I see one seemingly perfect, razor sharp new release after another only receiving a 9.8 which yes, when you put side by side with something like the Silver Surfer in this thread, pulls the Silver Surfer down, when it's that brand new release that really should be pushed up instead. Hope that makes sense.

I've been wondering if/when CGC plans to fix this as well. Even though all 3 have publication dates of 5/84, ASM #252 did come out a couple of weeks before the others but Marvel Team-up #141 and Spectacular #90 literally came out the same day so the two of them should be "tied" for second. The current description of Marvel Team up #141 being tied with ASM #252 and Spectacular #90 being "1st in title" doesn't make sense...

ASM #252 (5/84) released on January 31st

Marvel Team-up #141 and Spectacular SM #90 (5/84) both released February 14th

IMO, either all 3 tie for 1st due to the same 5/84 publication date or...ASM is 1st by itself and Marvel Team-up #141 and Spectacular SM #90 are both tied for 2nd.