Phill the Governor

Without seeing the back cover this seems like an incredibly common (slight) press to get the spine back to it's original orientation. An advanced technique, usually done without removal & re-insertion of staples.

Only catch would be if this was a reverse spine roll, that was intentionally done to move defects from the original orientation of the spine to the back cover. If that's the case, it's CGC's fault for over-grading the book the second time around.

Bump for price drop to $799.

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!

Joker Graphic Novel.

Also, honorable mention: Blankets by Craig Thompson.

On 2/13/2023 at 1:48 PM, Gotham Kid said:

the grade looks deserving, just would have preferred a better centered copy

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

On 1/30/2023 at 3:56 PM, byosti said:

when studying census numbers like this, how many or what % do you think is resubs/presses/resto removal etc that do not include original label and then would be doubly counted? same with cgc to cbcs or cbcs to cgc skewing 

On 2/13/2023 at 3:57 PM, Batmanis#1 said:

Most likely a lot of them.

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.

On 2/12/2023 at 12:08 PM, Phill the Governor said:

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?

On 2/12/2023 at 11:45 PM, tth2 said:

No.

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.

On 2/12/2023 at 1:55 PM, Funnybooks said:

What's the point of CGC as a trusted third party assessor if we, as consumers need to buy the book and not the label? 

On 2/12/2023 at 2:20 PM, Artboy99 said:

completely agree. 

@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.

On 2/12/2023 at 2:18 PM, buttock said:

It's only fair to imply things that you believe, but weren't stated?  I'm not following this logic.  Feel free to assume implications in what you say, but don't put words in my mouth.  

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.

On 2/12/2023 at 1:30 PM, Artboy99 said:

I said buy the book not the label because that is really all that can be done. I hope the person that buys the Detective 166 does at least the bare minimum of diligence before they spend thousands of dollars to determine the book is probably an 8.0 instead of what the cgc label says.

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.

On 2/12/2023 at 12:56 PM, Phill the Governor said:

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".

 

On 2/12/2023 at 1:03 PM, buttock said:

You're really having to assign concrete values to intentionally ambiguous terms there to draw that conclusion.  Seems like you're reading what you want into it. 

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.

On 2/12/2023 at 11:16 AM, Twanj said:

Marvel 1604 #6,7,8 cover prelims by Scott McKowen

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

On 2/12/2023 at 12:55 PM, whomerjay said:

they are flat out gaslighting.

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).

On 2/12/2023 at 12:19 PM, buttock said:

Exactly.  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.  The number that were overgraded is about the same as the number of books on average that are overgraded from that era.  

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".

On 2/12/2023 at 11:47 AM, Artboy99 said:

My post on my specific book was in response to this comment:

"Most of the Promise Collection books were graded about three increments higher than CGC norms. Some were overgraded even more than that. I saw some that looked to be overgraded by about 5 increments." 

Over nearly 5000 quantity of books in the Promise Collection how many of them are correctly graded versus the number that have been graded inaccurately? 

I agree the books you mention are poorly graded. The correct response to all of this is: Buy the book not the label.

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?

On 2/12/2023 at 10:05 AM, jimbo_7071 said:

Maybe it's an exaggeration to say that they were all overgraded by that much—but many of them were. The ones from the first few auctions where they were offered were probably among the worst overall. The ones that were offered later didn't appear to be overgraded as badly, but the grading was still soft on most of them.

Somebody just posted the Gangsters Can't Win; it would be pretty difficult to defend the grading on that one without being disingenuous.

Your Airboys didn't look bad; they were at least reasonably graded. Based on the Promise purchases you've shared, I would venture to guess that you passed on quite a few books that you knew were softly graded and targeted the rare few that were graded more tightly than the rest.

I'm assuming that the label on the Mary Marvel #6 below has a typo and that the outer cover is actually the 8.5. If that's the case, CGC is saying that the outer cover is an 8.5 even those that cover has two corners chewed off. And the inner cover, which has one cover chewed off, is a 9.2. That's just one example. @Phill the Governor can peruse the Promise threads to see more examples.

I will mention one more: The notes on this Subby 23 say "moderate bindary chip out left bottom of whole book." Does that look like a bindery chip to you? It sure looks like a mouse chew to me (and would even if I didn't know that mouse chews were prevalent within the collection).

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?

On 2/11/2023 at 1:21 PM, Gotham Kid said:

miscut (only thing that bothers me), but still a beaut

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?

On 2/11/2023 at 5:11 AM, Gotham Kid said:

I wish I could own/afford every one of the Promise Detectives (under 200)

None (that I noticed) of the Detectives looked over-graded.

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.

On 2/10/2023 at 4:02 PM, MrBedrock said:

Yeah! Let's get the government involved! We have all been wronged!

In my case, I think CGC undergraded my Promise Collection book! AND I WANT TO SUE SOMEBODY!

 

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.

On 2/10/2023 at 12:00 PM, Sillydiabetic said:

I purchased a lot yesterday.   I was told that there was a page from Cap America 1 included in a folder, thrown in because it wasn’t “worth much”.  
I was excited to have a piece of history, but imagine the look on my face when I pulled this out from between a few pages of CA 1!

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

On 2/10/2023 at 2:35 PM, Funnybooks said:

bottom line...higher grades...better return for the family and for Heritage. They were very consistent during this time to their benefit

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.

On 2/10/2023 at 12:55 PM, Gotham Kid said:

Multiple books not single book, but hey HA was the one doing the submitting so Christmas came early.

Had it been you, me or joe shmo ... don't count on 9.6s/9.8s handed out like they were.

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.

On 2/9/2023 at 1:55 PM, lou_fine said:

Can't remember now with regards to this specific book on its own, as there's been questions brought up with regards to the grading on many of the books from this Promise Collection that it's hard to keep track of them all.  

That's concerning.

On 2/9/2023 at 1:55 PM, lou_fine said:

BTW:  SCS damage also occurs after a book has ALREADY been graded.  

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.