Bookery

But no one's arguing that a 9.0 is the same as a 9.4 (the 9.4 would simply be a 9.5 in my scenario). Can you give me an absolutist example, instead, of the unarguable difference between a 9.0 and a 9.2, or a 9.4 and a 9.6? That's what I'm talking about.

Well, I personally prefer a numerical system to the old days... if for no other reason than it takes up less room on my labels. I just think the hobby went a bit too far on the number of breakdown points, that's all. For me, it's just simple logic. If a system, any system, cannot be largely consistent with its own standards, than to me, those standards are not valid. I think many arguing with me simply make my point... as it's been stated that thousands of dollars can ride on a .2 difference. Exactly! And if that .2 difference cannot be applied with any consistency, due to the difficulties in detecting said differences, than a lot of money is in a constant state of risk due to such inconsistencies, which over time, is unhealthy for collectors or investors. Which is why there is such panic over pressing (which, more often than not, is about aiming for a .2 upgrade) and multiple resubmissions (same thing) and other anxieties often expressed here. I simply posit a less-stressful collecting environment... which seems to inspire stress-filled threads!

That cannot factually be accurate. But you've still got the bluebird. As a veteran birdwatcher of 40+ years, I'll take the bluebird over a fickle female.

Exactly. Others here are expressing these differences as if they are "fact"... and that simply is not the case. It's all just opinion, and perhaps more precisely, taste. A .2 scale is not factually better than a .5 scale... it's just what someone is used to. I'm guessing a lot of these people grew up, at least collecting-wise, with the CGC model, so that is what they are comfortable with. Also, with monikers like "nearmint", we can see where their collecting emphasis is as well (which is in no way a criticism, btw). I grew up in the rare book arena, as well as got into comics in the early '80s, so that no doubt influences my prejudices. BUT... I did not bring it up to derail a thread into a discussion of grading systems, OTHER than to point out once again we have 100-pages of frustration largely based, IN MY OPINION, on the very nature of said grading system. That was my original point. (And CGC couldn't change their system if they wanted to... too much money already established into the existing model)... the 9.4 and 9.8 guys would be thrilled, but the 9.2, 9.6, and 10.0 owners would throw a fit, as would be expected.

Okay... you irritate me with one post, then make me laugh with another. That's not playing fair!

Well, obviously not. Hmm. What could have possibly prompted me to respond in kind to a snarky comment? I wonder... According to CGC they do. According to me, they aren't that significant. That's the whole point. Now my opinion is an "opinion"... again proving that it's obviously isn't "welcome". BTW-- you already have bought books from me... you just don't know it. You get them from dealers who buy them from me, mark up the grades, or have them upgraded from CGC, and you happily pay a lot more from them than you ever would from me. Just sayin'...

I never said anything about it being nefarious. I just said it's silly. And CGC didn't invent it... they simply gave the collecting community what it wanted. I understand that. But we've had dozens of threads showing (even unpressed) books resubbing from 9.4 to 9.6, or from 9.6 to 9.4 to prove that even professional graders cannot consistently tell the difference between them. The only reason that my system of treating 9.0 and 9.2 as 9.0, and 9.4 and 9.6 as 9.5, and 9.8 and 10.0 as 10.0 upsets folks... is that there are enough collectors who want to make sure they have the ONLY 9.6 to the others' 9.4 to claim bragging rights. Besides... no two copies of the same book are ever going to be identical... so why not go with the 100-point scale that Oversteet floated for awhile? I'll guarantee if you put two 10.0 copies of the same book on here, half the boards will declare that one copy is better than the other. It's not even a matter of saying some 9.6s aren't better than a 9.4... it's a matter of saying is the difference significant enough to merit its own separate classification? For some it is. For me it's not.

Winnah and new world record! This is the fastest response yet with the ol' "you dare to have a different opinion than me so I'll never buy books from you" knee-jerk. Congratulations!!! (Not to mention it's not very bright... if I'm grading my books as a 9.0 and you can get a 9.2 or a 9.4 out of them from CGC... wouldn't it behoove you to especially buy books from me???).

You might be onto something. Artificial Value One day the powers to be sat around a room, and said how can we get people to spend to slab a bronze/copper/ modern comic book only really worth this in nm? Ah We will do away with NM grades and come up with the digital 9s label to make profit. Bronze,Copper, and Modern age comics that are only worth $1 in near mint at best,now they will go for much more when we slap the 9.4,9.6 and 9.8 level on it. Now they will pay for a book really only worth without the slab and thus than an empire was born The only thing I would change about your argument is I would substitute the term "manufactured value" for "artificial value", as has been pointed out, value is whatever someone is willing to pay at a specific time. I would guess 90% of the angst in this hobby stems from the ridiculous notion of grading paper down to tenths of a point. A system that would have left well enough alone by grading steps that went 8.0, 8.5, 9.0, 9.5, 10.0 would eliminate a very large portion of the "problems" which produce dozens of threads here. But to point out such reality makes you a heretic, and so it goes. There is a bit of a problem, however, with your $1 value transformed into $20 scenario. If an unslabbed modern is worth $1, and it cost $20 to slab it, and the book is now worth $20, is there really any "artificial" value, or is the book price simply reflecting the slabbing costs. If I put a $100 painting in a $100 frame, and ask $200 for it... I'm not really creating artificial value, but simply asking the value of the two combined products. I always thought, especially for less expensive books, that it was ludicrous that collectors won't spend any more on a slabbed $50 book, say in 6.0, than they would for the raw version... which is why, as Dale has also pointed out, it isn't cost-efficient for many dealers to slab much of their inventory. But apparently on cheap moderns, buyers are willing to include the cost of the slab into their valuations.

That is 100%...something. Yep 100% something. . I figure it's no more fanciful than much of what's been stated here. Besides, it's irrelevent, since the pulpworms are due in 2014.

We more readily accept restoration on one-of-a-kind works of fine art because it's the only way to maintain the singular artifact. When twentieth-century comics are in a far greater state of deterioration that they are at present, what you're saying will hold more weight. But we'll all be dead by then. I'm not advocating restoring or not-restoring comics. And it's not a matter of my statement holding weight, since what I stated above is simply fact. And I'm not sure why any of the categories I mentioned above would be in any different states of deterioration than comics. As for whether we'll all be dead by then... you are forgetting about the coming Japanese paper-beetle invasion of 2016.

This statement is 100% not true. Ditto. Actually, for the statement to be 100% not true, you would have to be suggesting that a correct statement would be "No art gets restored. US comic book collectors are the first to realize this." Exactly. The last time I was at the Met and MOMA, the curators were more than happy to let me know what pieces were being restored and therefore not viewable. This pansy approach to purity is pathetic. Dan Comics are mass produced items. It's a world of difference. Probably the most accurate statement would be: Most art gets restored eventually. A lot of comic collectors don't realize this. That said... mass-produced makes no difference. If it becomes collectible, it can and will eventually be restored... especially the most valued items... including mass-produced items such as posters, books, bicycles, furniture, toys, automobiles, clothing, jewelry, guns, knives, dolls, clocks, boats... you get the idea.

Don't trust any of the hobbies around these parts. I don't even trust the parts... Put your hand on your gun. Don't you trust anyone. There's just one kind of man that you can trust, that's a dead man. Or a gringo like me.

This statement is 100% not true. Ditto. Actually, for the statement to be 100% not true, you would have to be suggesting that a correct statement would be "No art gets restored. US comic book collectors are the first to realize this."

This is the REAL reason I don't do conventions anymore... no embarrassing pictures of me floating around out there to be tampered with! (Actually... aside from this one, there are virtually no pictures of me anywhere from the past 20 years or so).

I don't know Tupenny, but this another of my favorites. Step back a couple of feet from the screen and this image is a dead-ringer for a young JR!

This is terrifying. Which part? The upper image of a four-legged monster, or the lower paste-in image of opening day at SDCC?

Bonnett's Bookstore opened here in Dayton, OH in 1939 and is still operating today with the 3rd generation of family employees. From the beginning they traded in comics 2-for-1. They still sell back-issues today, but they are pretty picked over and they don't actively seek collections, though may still pick up some stuff if it walks in. A few years back the 2nd-Generation owner sold off some of the stuff he kept tucked away that came in the shop early on -- an Action #1 and multiple copies of some other golden-age keys such as Sensation #1, etc. (mostly in the g-vg range, IIRC). Most people around the country that have sizeable collections of older material likely have comics with the infamous "Bonnett's cover stamp" on them... so they dealt with many thousands of comics over the years.

Under a pseudonym, all of the Ghost stories were written by G.T. Fleming-Roberts (even when it becomes "The Green Ghost").

Good pulps have been scarce lately, but I did just pick up this one...

Hey, buddy, don't blame me... blame the hydrochlorathiazide!

It's well known that the only reason Donald put up with all those shenanigans from his nephews was he was biding his time until they were fattened up enough.

Sorry-- just now saw this! But yes-- that pretty much covers it, other than all of the detective / mystery / spy pulps seem to be getting scarcer each passing year. Obviously, they are still out there... but they aren't changing hands very often. SF pulps are still relatively easy to obtain.

The cover actually depicts the Skylark of Space, which gives this issue even more significance as it's also the 1st published story by E.E. "Doc" Smith. Smith was one of the most popular sf authors of the 30s and 40s. For the actual 1st (and only) cover appearance of Buck Rogers, look to the March 1929 issue (but you aren't going to like it).

Exactly. If I were a slabbing operation would there be things I'd do differently than CGC? Sure. Just like if they bought my shop they'd completely re-tool it to their personal preferences. But in the end it was collectors and speculators that determined that certain grades should command many multiples beyond previous market parameters. I don't recall CGC ever giving pricing advice or publishing an official CGC price guide. CGC provided a service that many were looking for, and it was collectors that decided these products were worth X-amount. When those determinations, due to the massive price increases a fraction of a grade could mean, brought a host of other issues... micro-trimming and other scams, etc., some people tend to cry out that "CGC" ruined the hobby. Assuming the hobby is even "ruined", no 3rd party grading system brought it to that point... the hobbyists themselves did.