Phill the Governor

Bump for price drop to $799.

Hey everyone, Re-posting due to a non-payer from the original sale. Normal rules apply. No PL/HOS members. Shipping is free for continental United States. NY residents must add 8.875% to cover NY tax. 1st in the thread will trump any negotiations in PM. Payment: Paypal/Venmo is ideal, check is okay, too. Returns within 7 days if unsatisfied. Cinderella Love #27. Raw, estimated grade 1.8/2.0 white pages. Manufactured without a bottom staple. Spine of cover is about 70% split, including entire bottom half. Light staining on cover and tears on some interior pages. Cover and centerfold attached. (That's a printer's crease across the word "Love"). Book is unrestored. See photos for more details. Nice eye appeal for the technical grade! Basing price from a raw GD copy that sold on Heritage several month back for $1320 and a CGC 3.0 that recent went for $1225. Price: SOLD!

I'll come down to 1100 even, will move elsewhere if no traction picks up here.

Thanks for the bump, return policy is indeed a crucial element of the terms of sale!

Hey everyone, Normal rules apply. No PL/HOS members. Shipping is free for continental U.S. and NY residents must add 8.875% to cover NY tax. 1st in the thread will trump any negotiations in PM. Payment: Paypal/Venmo is ideal, check is okay, too. Returns within 7 days if unsatisfied. Cinderella Love #27. Raw, estimated grade 1.8/2.0 white pages. Manufactured without a bottom staple. Spine of cover is about 70% split, including entire bottom half. Light staining on cover and tears on some interior pages. Cover and centerfold attached. (That's a printer's crease across the word "Love") Unrestored. See photos for more details. Nice eye appeal for the technical grade! Basing price from a raw GD copy that sold on Heritage several month back for $1320. Price: $1250 $1100

Joker Graphic Novel. Also, honorable mention: Blankets by Craig Thompson.

I agree with you on preferring a better centered copy, for sure.

I find this unlikely. As long as the label is eventually sent back, its removed from the census. The people that are mostly cracking out books take the measures to send in groups of labels to do their part in keeping the census as accurate as possible. I'd argue those that don't are outliers.

I said it could be only (and is only) one of two things given a best/worst case scenario and he just says "No." Read it again with your rose colored glasses taken off: I presented the two most likely scenarios. At least reply saying it's human error/inconsistent grading, yeesh. Responses like this, or crying "injustice!" and posting some books from the Pedigree that do appear to be graded accurately, are doing absolutely no favors to the "there's nothing going on here" side of the argument; contrary what you guys may believe.

@Artboy99 I know I wrote a paragraph up there responding to you, saying the same exact thing, but It's good to know we're in agreement of this. You seem to be selective in what words you choose to accept. On one hand you think "most of the books were accurately graded. There were several that were egregiously overgraded, but taken as a whole the reputation that "all promise books are overgraded" is just wrong." - your words. At the same time, you have a problem with me clarifying that by labeling the group of mis-graded books as "several". It gives a false impression of the scope, since, according to @MrBedrock the number is at least 40. Which would be several dozen. So your unconscious bias is showing. That number, at a minimum is troubling.

I'm pragmatic enough to adhere this is philosophy myself. Trust me, I get it. However, I cannot escape thinking... what's the point of having it be CGC graded in the first place then? If we're suppose to buy the book not the grade.. wasn't that what CGC came into the marketplace to do: to be an impartial third party that gives a professional grade within a strict set of standards? That way people can be more re-assured of the book in grade they are buying and don't have to rely on their own ability to properly grade the book? When it comes down to it, the philosophy that we share really bothers me because the existence of CGC is suppose to remove the brunt of that responsibility from the consumer and somehow that came back around and it's suddenly suppose to be "our" responsibility again. Same as it was with raw books. I can speak for myself that I can accurately (within a reasonable margin) grade and handle books. But I can't tell you how many collectors I know that are great people, that can't for the life of them even handle books properly, let alone grade them within a reasonable margin of error. And CGC was initially created to compensate for the number of people in the marketplace like them that will always exist, no matter what happens. It's not fair to them, that due diligence is their responsibility but only up to a reasonable degree.

In the same way that people have a problem with other ambiguous terms favoring one side of the argument over another, I'm seeking to lend impartial ones where it seems to do the same. Since we don't yet have concrete numbers, part of the conversation involved the need to specify. It's only fair.

I need read this series, been on my list for a while. Sweet prelims!

Bingo. The Tec 166 actually has the tear on the back cover IN the grader's notes. In no reality would a book normally be given a 9.6 with a tear like that (aside from the dust/sun shadow).

It does appear that it's more like "a number of them" that exceeds "several", so "several" is just as disingenuous as saying "they were all over-graded".

I think that by phrasing the argument "most of the books in the collection" it takes focus away from the fact that there are definitely books there were over-graded. Then it becomes an exercise of one book at a time instead of focusing on the semantics of how the argument was phrased. Probably better to just say there are a number of over-graded books instead of "most of the books are over-graded". Regardless, I think at a certain point the "buy the book not the grade" falls flat when an unsuspecting buyer, like the one with the Tec 166 shells out 5 figures more than the book is worth because they don't trust their grading skills (that's why they're buying an already graded book!) and believe the book was accurately graded by CGC. I can't rationalize an excuse that is fair, and "buy the book not the grade" doesn't cut it with that much money involved. It's not our job to identify the grade and buy the book, doesn't that defeat the purpose of CGC's grade in the first place? At best, this could be chalked up to human error of inconsistent/overgrading. But if it is true that many Promise books have been selling for less the second time around, is that not also an indicator of a scheme that rhymes with fonzi, given the the worst, most damning scenario?

Yeesh. I'm still not seeing anyone defend the Tec 166 I initially posted. Taking it one book at a time, how is that one a 9.6? Aside from the spine stress, and giving the dust/sun shadow a severe benefit of the doubt, is a normal book with spine stress lines AND a tear (that's even in the grader's notes!) on the back cover acceptable in 9.6? What are your thoughts on the statement above? The difference in the price that book, as a 9.6, went for, vs what it would have gone for if even graded a 9.2 is what, over $10,000? That's not an arbitrary amount. And we're just looking at one book, where the main issue on the back cover may be initially overlooked. I'm seeing a trend of some people like @MrBedrock and @Artboy99 who, for understandable reasons, only appear to focus on "well the books I have/seen look tightly graded, or graded accurately" when the argument other's seem to be making is "that has no bearing on the ones that aren't accurately graded, and by a large margin- and there's more than just a couple of them". The existence of the former does not dismiss the existence of the later, unfortunately. @MrBedrock and @Artboy99 Can either of you provide legitimate reasons why the Tec 166 with the tear on the back cover (aside from the sun/dust shadow on the front cover) is acceptable in 9.6. How about the Gangster's can't win that was posted on the previous page? How about the Sub-Mariner 23 and Mary Marvel 26 posted right above? We all can point to books that were accurately graded, but these other ones still need to be accounted for, right?

I'm with you on that first sentiment! The Tec 166 I posted at the beginning of my thread I saw from scrolling through instagram. It was being marketed for an upcoming auction, and even then it stood out to me.

Based on the spine stress lines and apparent slight wear on the bottom of the spine, personally this looks right on as a 9.2. A very pretty copy!! But also, unless I'm mistaken there's an overwhelming sentiment that there are enough (more than just one or two) other books from the collection, by a wide enough margin to lend concern to many. And that much seems unmistakable. I haven't bought a single book from this pedigree. But as a collector who does have and like CGC graded books, I feel CGC should be accountable for their lack of integrity.

Congrats!!!! Some collectors search their entire lives for diamonds in the rough like that, quite the find!!

That's a shame. I guess CGC's ability to remain (mostly) impartial went out the window after the Blackstone acquisition. Is there potential course for action to be taken by those who purchased books within this time period? Considering the scandal that happened over 20 years now, with the overvaluing of coins and selling them at inflated prices which resulted in federal action and legal repercussions.. isn't this the same thing now only with comic books? The difference in value of these books that were over-graded isn't a paltry amount.

I guess what I'm saying is that apparently due to their grading inconsistencies across the board over the last several years, this Pedigree just happened to be submitted during that time and experienced the same inconsistencies in grading. The ones still going on to this day.

I'm just going to chalk this up to human error and the book was over graded. Enter the whole... buy the book not the grade mantra I guess.

That's concerning. Yes, that much was implied by stating the inner well caused that specific damage.... which can only happen once it's encapsulated. That defect really just adds insult to injury since, at the very least, all the other defects were already present according to the graders notes. Except for the dust shadow, which I guess they not only didn't factor into the grade but also didn't put in the notes.

Forgive my ignorance, was this specific book already brought up?