Stronguy

On 5/11/2022 at 9:43 AM, shadroch said:

Where it gets convoluted is CGC changed it's stance on tape nine years ago so books graded before that time were held to one standard and books today are judged differently, so two books with identical amounts of tape will have very different labels depending on when they were graded. Someone may see an older book with tape in a universal label and assume that his book will get the same treatment.

That's true but tape we not considered restoration even before the clarification.  CGC used to not count off as heavily for books with tape.  There are many instances where a book that had a completely split cover that was taped back together then reattached got a 1.5 rather than a .5 like it would receive today.

On 5/11/2022 at 8:53 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

I said, "I would call it restoration", so where was I incorrect?

Lighten up, Francis.  I'm just saying that tape is not considered restoration by CGC.  It's not convoluted, it's very clear and CGC clarified it 9 years ago.

On 5/11/2022 at 6:32 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Considering that the piece is taped back on, I would call it restoration. CGC does not have "tape" referred to on their restoration scale, though. Tape is included on the conservation scale, but only as referred to by "A-1" restoration standards. Quite convoluted.

Can't discern what hit the grade would take without pics, though.

This is incorrect.  Tape on an book (ref. the link in another post) is noted on the label and the grade is treated as if the tape doesn't exist.  You do not get a restored grade for tape alone.

On 4/17/2022 at 4:39 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

I had an ASM #361 with three covers once. I thought it was a construct, as there was one broken staple and the outer cover was slightly loose - those red flags didn't stop someone buying it though. They decided, if anything, that the damage was natural, thinking 'who would try to pass off a triple cover with a broken 'red flag' staple'? More likely it broke trying to penetrate three covers?

I've worked on many, many, many ASM 361s and what you describe is right on the money.  The cover attachment is really, really sloppy and the vast majority of the time at least 1 staple has a problem.  The QP on that book is horrible.  The first thing I would look for on a multi-cover version is the grabber marks on the bottom of the front/back cover.  Those would need to align but I suppose it's possible that the interior cover would not necessarily be perforated. 

The spine of a comic should be rounded when it is properly pressed.  Some pressers think the answer to stubborn spine ticks is to up the pressure.  Oftentimes, especially if they use a lot of moisture, you will see a crushed spine.  It's more of a V shape than a U shape.

On 4/21/2022 at 8:02 AM, Stefan_W said:

In order for this mistake to happen the person submitting it must have put in incorrect info in the submission form.

100% incorrect.  There a many, many documented instances where people have submitted books under the right title/issue/print/variant and CGC has just screwed it up.  Heck, I've had to send the same book back multiple times to get them to get it right.

On 4/21/2022 at 8:02 AM, Stefan_W said:

I am sure CGC is taking a lot of heat for missing this one

And they should.  It has been a problem for DECADES (ref. the 3rd print TMNT 1 9.8 that was labeled and sold as a 9.8 1st print.)

On 4/16/2022 at 4:31 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

Yes, I agree. But millions and millions of comics have been printed. The improbable is going to happen. 

I'm guessing if it were possible to calculate the probability, with all the moving parts and stars that would have to align, it would be in billions.  However, there is one right there and OtherEric said it was sold shortly after it came out and wasn't being sold as such (which lends veracity).  It's like the CVP with an MJI -- it shouldn't exist yet one exists (and I'm still skeptical about it despite CGC verifying it).

On 4/16/2022 at 4:25 PM, BlowUpTheMoon said:

I've got a 100 Easy Crossword Puzzles cover attached to a Sgt. Fury book.  Anything is possible. 

I think that's more likely than 2 different version of a cover getting pulled.  Heck, I have a Many Ghost of Doctor Graves with Top Cat guts.

On 4/16/2022 at 4:22 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

To me, that makes it likely. If both cover types being manually loaded together isn't out of the ordinary, and multiple covered books is a thing, then our scenario here is a statistical certainty, surely. 

It's important to remember, possibility =/= probability, and possible absolutely =/= likely.  There would have to be a perfect storm for it to happen.  The feeder for the covers gets adjusted to control the feed and sometimes that gets out of whack, thus you get issues that are known for having multiple covers.  In this case, the feed adjustment would have to allowed for 2 covers to come out at just the right time.  Could that have happened, sure - but not probable.  Could there have been something on the bottom of the direct cover that stuck it to the top newsstand cover, maybe.  In fact that would be the most likely explanation IMO.

On 4/16/2022 at 11:52 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Did we all discuss this once before? I don't know explicitly how the books were batched and stapled back in the day, but I can see how a run of newsstand covers could have been put on top of a run of direct, then fed in as a group to be stapled with the guts. The bottom copy of one type and top copy of the other could then have found their way on the same book by sticking together. Did that make sense? Probably not. 

I don't know if we discussed it here but I did talk to someone in the printing business and he said it's possible but improbable.  Covers are manually loaded into the bin for assembly.  Someone would have had to have loaded the Direct covers on top of the newsstand covers (not out of the ordinary) and the bottom cover of the Direct pile would have had to somehow stick to the top newsstand cover.

On 4/3/2022 at 11:10 PM, Tony S said:

Archival tape is a bit less clear. It is listed as a material used in conservation repairs, but there are books out there with archival tape repairs that are blue labels. So not clear what that means. Could be as simple as the graders are not able to always tell if the tape they see on a book is archival. 

All the books I've ever seen with archival tape are graded just as if it were regular tape.  That was confirmed by Paul Litch several years ago, before the Conserved label came about, when I asked him about what would be allowed on my ASM 1.  There was a piece on the back cover that was barely handing on; Matt Nelson had reinforced with rice paper.  Paul told me, because it was rice paper, regardless of its function, it would be PLOD.  The only way around that would be to tape it. It wouldn't matter if it was archival or not; it would get a blue label with a tape note.

On 3/24/2022 at 1:21 PM, FFB said:

one can infer that they may not use heat.  I can agree, however, that it's unclear either way and he does not explicitly say they don't use heat

I know for a fact that Matt used heat (in conjunction with moisture and cold pressing) when he owned CI.  His office was about 10 minutes from my house and he and I talked pressing several times.  In fact he was the one who encouraged me to press my own books.  Heck we would get brownouts when he fired up all the presses. (Okay, I made up that last part.)  I recall hearing he had 60 presses at one point (unconfirmed).

On 4/9/2022 at 10:04 AM, KirbyJack said:

I’d easily take the after over the before, but the colors are better without the slab.

The lighting is completely different.  I took the first photo on the seller's dining room table with one of those horrible white lights they have in the hospital.  The other one (slabbed) is on my desk with much less harsh lighting.

On 4/7/2022 at 11:55 PM, OtherEric said:

I’ve shown this before, but since you asked nicely:

That's really interesting.  Knowing how the manufacturing process works, I would be very suspect of something like this actually being legit.

On 4/7/2022 at 11:04 AM, BlowUpTheMoon said:

My copy of that only has five covers - CGC 9.8

Nice to see yours!

It's a monster.
This one got 9.6, 9.6, 9.8, 9.8, 9.8, 9.8, 9.8. 

On 4/6/2022 at 12:12 PM, fishbone said:

On 4/5/2022 at 9:54 PM, Stronguy said:

Heck, 5 days. They got them on a Monday, had them in the system by Wednesday, and mailed out the next Monday. 
 

Expand  

walkthru - that's why

congrats, great story!  Hopefully win -  win for both parties !  

WT is the only way to do a $30k book.  The Avengers 1 (also on that sub) was $3k+ so it only made sense to put it on there.  Blood Is The Harvest is the 3rd book.  Even though it qualified for a much lower tier, it was actually made more sense to do WT after you factor in shipping and TAT.

On 4/5/2022 at 8:46 PM, Sweet Lou 14 said:

I dunno, this story sounds far fetched.

 

Less than a month to get books back from CGC?!  

Heck, 5 days. They got them on a Monday, had them in the system by Wednesday, and mailed out the next Monday.