Tom789

On 5/24/2023 at 9:53 AM, LowGradeBronze said:

Are you saying there's a mismatch between the printed indicia at the foot of the splash page and the 'Mar' printed on the front cover?

Yes.  For #142 for example, the indicia says (c) 1974, the cover says "MAR" and entering it in the CGC form it says "3/75".  I'm pretty sure it actually came out in 1974, knowing that comic book publishers usually had cover dates several months in the future.

I have Amazing Spider-Man #142-145 that I want to get graded.  The indicias say they are from 1974, but in entering #142 for grading, CGC says it is from "3/75", which is the cover date.  Which is the correct one to use for the vintage/modern determination?

I use silicone parchment paper for my pressing and I've never gotten a pebbling/canvasing grader's note out of the 100 or so books I've submitted to CGC so far.

On 5/7/2023 at 10:03 AM, scburdet said:

I'd have to agree with this as my earlier Grader Notes post will attest. I will take that ASM16 at 3.0 over the Action Comics at 4.0 all-day, every-day. I would assume a grading error if I was considering buying a 4.0 that looked like that. The ASM is one of these books I can back calculate how a CGC came to that grade regardless of whether or not it matches my standards. The ASM is quite attractive as long as you don't look at the reverse. In addition, I suspect there's some combination of evaluation of a) the tear is one major defect (i.e. each wrap is not counted as an additional defect) & b) the long tear sets the grade around 3.0 and the inner wrap tears are "allowable" in a comic graded at 3.0. Kind of like the Avengers this round. CGC's states shadow is a 8.0-9.8 defect depending on severity. I thought it was bad enough that the overall appearance merited a lower grade than 8.0, but I can see how someone got there with CGC's standards (the name of the game is guessing where CGC lands, not someone else's grading standards). That Action Comics is not attractive with all the creasing and ink loss on the bottom right. No amount of mental contortion gets me to 4.0. You have to assume that the creasing, which is really severe, lowers to 4.0 & the ink loss (and other decfects), which is not as severe, doesn't result in additional deduction. I don't quite buy the 4.0 floor stated in the CGC book for creasing. This would suggest that no matter how many creases a book has they would never go below 4.0. The Grader Notes for the Action Comics, the Batman (round 3) and JIM (round 2) are similar. I don't see how this is internally consistent. If anything, the Action Comics presents closer to the JIM, which I already felt was a charitable 3.0. 

I don't buy the 4.0 floor either.  I have a Tomb of Dracula #10 that has an extreme amount of creasing on the front cover, and it got a CGC 2.0 (which I was happy with).  I don't think the other flaws would have brought it below 4.0.

Wow #1 3.5, CGC 5.0 - 3 pts.  Ouch!

Action Comics #253 4.0, CGC 4.0 - 0 pts.  Bullseye!

Avengers #48 7.5 - CGC 8.5 - 2 pts.  I deducted too much for the shadowing.

X-Men #107 8.5 - CGC 9.0 - 1 pt.  Saw more creasing than I thought a 9.0 should have on 3 of the front corners.

Star Wars #68 - 9.2 - CGC 9.4 - 1 pt.  Thought I saw some small stains on both front and back.

I'm still inexperienced and haven't looked at thousands of books like some here, so I gave the Looney Tunes book a 7.0 based on what the CGC grading book said about missing pieces - a 7.5 can have a 0.5" piece missing (I assume that means 0.5" by 0.5").  So I thought the accumulated area missing on the book was about that or a little less. Then deducted another 0.5 for other minor issues.  Just got lucky I think.

Looney Tunes #5 - 7.0 (7.0) 

Rex the Wonder Dog #31 - 6.0 (6.0)

Batman #156 - 4.0 (3.5) 1

Spidey #78 - 8.5 (9.2) 2

Daredevil #168 - 9.0 (8.5) 1

That Spidey spine tick produced my worst result, and I almost went 8.5 on the Daredevil for the corner creasing.  8+7+4 = 19 pts. so far.

I just looked up 2 books that I paid imaging for and were shipped out by CGC on April 10.  The images are on the cert pages.

My previous submission shipped out 29 March with no images paid for, and no images are on the cert pages (of the 3 books out of 25 I checked).

From my PC, collected in the early 80s.  This book miraculously survived 35 years in a closet in just a polybag (no backing board) in a long box.

On 4/28/2023 at 6:29 PM, agamoto said:

/watch?v=lb0jVtBLtrc that one?

The only possible evidence I can think of is a cover that appears shrunken. Could just be the way the interior wraps are sitting if the staples are little loose, but pretty sure dimensional changes to a cover are a tip-off that the book's been over-juiced. If it didn't cost so damn much to resubmit, I'd crack it and send it back in just to see if it comes back restored again. 

That's the one.

Got a bullseye on the first book of the first round.  But after that ....

8 pts first round.  7 pts second round.

The original submitter posted a follow up video where he showed in detail an ASM 33 that got the purple label.  I happen to have an ASM 33 blue label, graded last year with off-white to white pages.  I bought the book in the early 1980s and sent it in without cleaning or pressing.  The best comparison I could make with his book was the back cover.  He showed it and described it as off-white.  Mine is considerably darker and with yellow tones.  I would actually call mine dingy looking.  If the video white balance was good, then I suspect the cleaning indication might have come from a diagnosis of the back cover.  I must emphasize, just a suspicion, clearly not solid evidence!

On 4/28/2023 at 7:58 AM, zzutak said:

"Loose" is one of those terms that should never be used in a condition description.    Why?  It's a word that can describe either a partially detached item (such as a loose tooth) or a completely detached item (such as a loose dog that's roaming the neighborhood).  When it comes to comics, I prefer the "attached" and "detached" descriptors (for example, securely attached, barely attached, and/or completely detached).  For best results, leave nothing open to interpretation.

The entire cover can be completely separated from the interior at one or more staples.  It's also possible that only the front cover or only the back cover is detached at a specific staple.  CGC would describe these various defects as follows (click to enlarge):

Finally, I'm a big believer in the "picture is worth a thousand words" concept.  Ridiculously easy since, these days, almost everyone has a smart phone glued to their hand.

Thank you very much!  I will go with their description from the Superboy and call it "front cover detached at top staple".  

At the top staple, the front cover between the staple points has come loose.  What is the proper term for this and what is the usual grading deduction?

ROM #31's notations are already extensive, but it might be worth adding that it is Rogue's 2nd appearance (tied with X-Men #158).

Looks close to a 2.5 I have, so I'm going with that.

8 points and one bullseye (Flash).  I'll take it for my first ever attempt.

On 4/24/2023 at 5:07 PM, SolidShredder said:

RIP me. I thought I saw staining on Tessie and I got paranoid and thought I was missing things so I kept lowering my grades  . Listening to my gut from now on. 

Are you talking about the back top right?  I thought the scuff was a stain, so I gave it a 6.0.  Ouch!

Since I wrote the "very light spine stress lines" as a paraphrased comment for 9.8 I wanted to get it exactly right as I thought maybe the "lines" word wasn't there.  It is there.

I looked closely at the book and missed it on a first pass.  On the second pass, I found one stress line in the middle of the spine covering both front and back that measures about 1/16" of an inch (on one side).  It IS allowed in a 9.8 according to the CGC grading book.

Verify CGC Certification | CGC (cgccomics.com)

Also, check out this 9.8.  How many spine ticks do you count?

Sign me up!

CGC 6.0.  Grader's notes: light spine stress lines to cover, moderate creasing to cover.

I measure the total length of the creases as a little over 2" (reader's crease front right edge, front bottom right cover faint crease, back top left corner).  I scoured the book for additional creases but didn't find any.  The CGC grade book says a 7.5 can have a crease (total creases length?) of up to 2 inches.  A 6.0 can have up to 7".  So I think the grade should have been 7.0 to 7.5.  I overlooked or forgot about the reader's crease somehow during my submission, so I don't think I would have submitted it if I saw it, and I can't complain too much, but I do feel this is a very harsh grade.