Tedsaid

Has that been verified, that CBCS doesn't use black light? One guy mentioned that over at the CBCS board, but he doesn't work there. Sounds odd to me. (And to him.)

Well, it looks like a distribution mark. As with arrival dates, those don't generally count against the grade, especially if they are unobtrusive like this one. At least, I'm guessing that's why. Perhaps ANY mark doesn't count a lot against a grade if it's unobtrusive. After all, sometimes they'll give a blue label to an unverified signature and just knock it down a grade and note the sig. A Stan Lee signature, for example, would be a lot bigger than this tiny mark. If the black mark is what they were counting as CT on the op, that is incorrect. CT is used to (try to) make the comic look better, not worse. If that's it, someone at CGC REALLY screwed up here.

Ah, I see. Well, Buzzetta posted that it was graded in April of 2019. He checked previously, and posted it at the CBCS forum.

Well, I am getting the same message. That cert number no longer exists. Which is odd. Have they already submitted for re-regrading? I know CBCS, as a matter of practice, will send CGC labels back to CGC, to update the census. So it could have go to either place for a new grade.

Okay, now THAT'S hilarious. Well played.

Another mischaracterization. I'm sorry, DocBrown, but gaslighting doesn't work on me. I said it's more likely that CGC got it wrong rather than CBCS. One of 'em had to, after all. You don't seem to understand that point, which is fine ... I mean, it's not rocket science. But some people just have trouble reading posts and interpreting words and stuff. I get it. Have a good night.

It's not statistically insignificant if the three things are correlated. Which they are, of course. Someone spots what they think is one type of resto they are much more likely to think there are other types. And besides that, even if you think it ridiculous, it must then be equally ridiculous that CBCS MISSED "three different types of restoration." Those are the only two choices, after all. Unless you think someone cracked a 9.2 $10,000 comic, used color touch, tear seals on tears that aren't there, and trimmed a perfect cover edge, just to send it in to CGC and hope they wouldn't detect it? I think we can all agree, that is the most absurd scenario. Which pretty much only leaves: either CBCS was wrong, or CGC was. I think, of the two, it's more likely CGC was careless. You think otherwise. That's fine. I'm not gonna make it out to be some moral issue like you did. Agree to disagree, even when you are wrong. Also, my opinion isn't that CGC missed restoration ... it's that they saw restoration that isn't there. Are you still not getting that? I don't know how to say it more plainly. I remember you now. You're the one who wrote pages and pages about how eBay sellers who put "not CGC" in their listings are morally bankrupt scoundrels who will bring about the end of civilization, right? Yeah, I remember. I thought that was a bit excessive. I particularly liked how you could never let a single issue go, no matter how wrong you were. In fact, the more wrong, the more likely you were to defend your posts to the nth degree. It was ... tiring. But hey, looks like they let you back in here! Congrats! How is it CGC doesn't tolerate snarky? Please explain. Because I've read the posts, and I'm pretty sure that's another lie. Or "a-lie-but-not-on-purpose."

CGC: Your comic has restoration. Schrödinger: That's your fault for looking at it. Thanks a lot, #!&*%

Was it for excessive and poorly done pedantry? Also, I don't know who you are, or were over there. To say I crossed a line when I didn't is an insult. It is a (false) claim that i am purposefully unethical. What would you call it? "I'm merely stating a negative opinion about you, based on the words you wrote and my misinterpretation of them." Yeah, that doesn't fly. Which adds exactly nothing to the conversation that is about the detection of restoration. You're right though ... I was giving you too much credit; I assumed you would be trying to make a contribution to the discussion. Apologies for the oversight. Actually, it isn't. YOU defined "gaming the system," in this case, as me hoping CBCS would not spot restoration that is actually there. That was a lie, which you later conceded. But here's what I don't get ... you conceded the point and admitted you were wrong ... and then you keep referring back to the same instance as if you were never wrong. Which is it? My words were clear. If you can't read them properly, that's on you, not me.

No, it's not. I wouldn't try to "game the system" and I never said that I would. I'll tell you what IS crossing the line, though ... taking my quote from CBCS's forum and replying here and insulting me, with the expectation that I'll never see it or be able to refute it. That's pretty unethical, if you ask me. What I said was, "I would LOVE to buy that comic for $1000 and send it to CBCS, on the greater-than-50%-chance CGC "spotted" resto that isn't there. (Well ... greater than 50% chance in my opinion.) That would definitely be worth a gamble." Whether you agree with me or not doesn't really matter ... it is my opinion that CGC saw restoration that wasn't there, and that's what I said. It's just more likely that CGC screwed up in this case than CBCS did. My desire to buy the book and resubmit is drawn entirely from that assumption. But by pretending I didn't say that, and then drawing conclusions based on what you imagine is "really" going on in my head? That's pretty crooked. Strike two for you. Is it a sure thing that CGC saw resto that wasn't there? No. And that's exactly what I stated, which is based on my experience with both companies over the last three years or so. As far as the idea that "If restoration exists, it is absolute," that's a pretty naive opinion, actually. Needlessly - and falsely - unequivocal. Restoration is missed all the time; there are many examples of false positives, too. I recently had a copy of Monstress #1 come back a 9.8, as it should have. (This from CGC.) It was previously - and wrongly - graded a 9.2, due to "slight moisture damage." That's because the special ink they used in the cover has spots that show up under a black light. That, and carelessness, gave the book the wrong grade for a false reason. CGC misses things; CBCS misses things. It happens. Not much use pretending it doesn't. And that's just one example from my personal experience. Another person posted here the example with an ASM 121 - CGC thought it was trimmed when it wasn't. And there was the Spider-Dan JIM 83 example, too. And yet you still think "If restoration exists, it is absolute?" I think you just aren't paying attention.

Here is what the reply was, when I emailed them asking about the distro ink: "We don't follow Overstreet's standards to a tee; we've evolved the grading standards into our own over the years because there are so many nuances that Overstreet doesn't account for. [...] Distro ink is usually small, and we ignore it in those cases. But sometimes the ink is large enough to affect a comic book's aesthetics, and we will begin to downgrade accordingly. The worst is when it's sprayed on 3 sides and heavily bleeds into the cover, which can go as low as 6.0. For your book, the width and bleed into the cover is larger than usual, which is why we downgraded to 9.4." I don't agree, of course, but it is what it is. Sounds like yours, though, would get a grade bump.

You're right, I'm not speaking with precision about "the era." I grew up in the 70's buying comics off the rack. These all had it, through the 80's as well. That's "the era" I was speaking of, a few decades. I made assumptions about this comic, which was before my time. Anyway, I wouldn't say - in fact, did say - that other flaws from the distributor such as bends and tears should get a pass. The main points are: 1) Overstreet doesn't count this as a flaw. That's huge. I believe the reason why is due to (2): anyone can judge and see it for themselves. It doesn't take an expert to see there is distribution ink on the back of the comic, you know? And, also, I think Overstreet reflects the majority of collectors here. People talk about how "forgiving" CGC (and others) can be on grading flaws and such. "Forgiving" is an interesting word. I think it indicates how people feel about the collector who bought the original comic, or the dealer who sold it. That is: it isn't their fault. They are "forgiven." The comic just came that way. A lot of comics came that way, and that's just reflective of the system that was in place. The store could have been as careful as possible and the collector could have handled with the utmost care, and their is nothing they could have done about distribution marks. It's just part of the comic. Anyway, it's the same with most arrival dates. Up to 9.9 (!) comics can have arrival dates, if they are small and inconspicuous, even when (usually) on the front cover. I have a 9.6 Superman's Girlfriend from January 1968 that has an arrival date on the front, and I think it's actually pretty cool. Shows the difference between when it actually arrived (in Nov., 1967) and the official "date" of the comic that is some months later. So it doesn't bother me. And if it did? I wouldn't need a grader to tell me that.

Well, I'm certainly glad CGC has started to accept this. It is more in line with many - if not most - collectors, I think. I take @Bomber-Bob's point that he wouldn't want a copy with this. There are probably many people who would agree, just as there are many who would ignore distribution spray. My feeling is, you don't have to have the grade reflect every possible attribute. You grade the comic as it is, not as you wish it to be. I mean, everyone can clearly see the distribution ink, you know? Just like everyone can clearly see a misaligned cover where it is printed askew or something. It doesn't take any special expertise. If such reduces the desirability, that's fine ... but you don't need the grade to reflect it, I think. Anyway, Overstreet is my source on this. They feel that distribution ink is not a flaw that should be graded. In fact, the example they use is one I would have a harder time with, since the overspray is on the front. But I get it. Grading expertise is mainly for having an expert list the things we can't work out for ourselves. Overspray doesn't need to be one of them ... it is what it is. We can all see it. Below I've put the relevant passage from Overstreet, and a couple front images of the book, two with flash and one without. Let me know if you want better close ups of the spine or something. And yes, @namisgr was correct: the graders' notes list both places.

Distribution, production ... it's all part of the process of making comics. I mean, sure, the bends from string used to tie a bale together would count as a defect. But distributor's ink? That isn't obtrusive like this? It's just bizarre to me. I mean, I've seen some bad distributor's ink, all over the back of the comic. Like a spill or something. But intentional spray? Most comics from that era had at least the mark across the top. I'm so used to seeing that color it didn't even register. A flaw? Nah.

"very light spine stress lines" These can barely been seen through the case. It took me forever to find even one.

I think the word you're looking for is "placid." No, I said PLACID, not ... oh, never mind.

Hi, all. I recently got back a silver age Amazing Spider-Man, and I was shocked it came back a 9.4. The key defect, they noted, is the distribution ink on the back, mostly at the top. I'll be honest, this barely registered for me before I bought it. If it's not obtrusive, I don't pay any attention to distribution ink like this. I've always considered it part of the comic. I can see these marks keeping a comic out of the 9.9 / 10.0 grades, where production flaws really matter a lot. By definition, they matter for mint and gem mint. But near mint grades? It seems crazy to me. What do you guys think? Here are pics of the back, with and without flash. This doesn't show on the front.

Well, the MyComicShop auction has just a few more days. Don't miss out! These graded comics are currently MUCH lower than they should be. Some will be bid up, but a few will slip through the cracks ... they always do. Good luck!

Well, things are underway and bidding has started. A couple of these will probably go for MUCH lower than bluebook value, so be sure to try your luck! I've also just put three big books in the July 1 Prime Auction. The Prime Auction, which is all special or higher-value comics, will start Monday, July 1st. And the three books up for auction are: Uncanny X-Men (2018 5th Series) #4B CGC 9.8. This is the 1:100 Brooks variant, just beautiful art with Psylocke (Hidden Gem) on the cover. Amazing Spider-Man (1963 1st Series) #121 CGC 9.2. Death of Gwen Stacy! This is a beautiful copy: 9.2 with WHITE pages, and the only reason it graded that low was due to a tiny printer pull on the back cover. (Which I didn't think they took off for, really, but there you are.) Sharp corners, bone white pages, and - believe it or not - never read. (Though I imagine the graders looked at all the pages.) New Mutants (1983 1st Series) #98 CGC 9.8. Holy Moly, this is a pretty book: 9.8 and perfect page quality. It's a bit of a risk, putting it in the auction, but let's see what happens, shall we? Here are the pics:

Hi, everyone. So, I had a GREAT time at HeroesCon this year. But I probably spent more than I should have, so I'm gonna auction off a few beauties over at MyComicShop this coming week. Most are high grade, all but one are graded. And a few might even be silver age ... ranging from January 1964 to June 1975. If you've never been there for their auctions, they start every Monday and run for one week. You can also easily tag comics that you want to "watch," to find out how much it ends up going for, etc. It's actually a great place to get some good deals usually. I expect most of these below to go for 60% - 80% of guide, with one or two well below that range. Here are the comics: Avengers 24, 9.0, OW/W pages. A real beauty with a Jack Kirby cover. Avengers 69, 8.5, WHITE pages. I really thought this was nicer, but I guess there was a slight amount of foxing on the back cover. Avengers 78, 8.0, WHITE pages. Ditto as above. Brave and the Bold 105, 9.2, WHITE pages. Batman and hippie Wonder Woman. Well, maybe 'hippie' is the wrong word, but she's definitely got that early 70's vibe with her clothes. Brave and the Bold 108, 9.2, WHITE pages. With Sgt. Rock (!) If you ever wanted to know if Rock made it through the war, the answer is a definite ... maybe. Brave and the Bold 115, 8.5, WHITE pages. 100 Page Giant! These are so hard to find in high grade. Brave and the Bold 119, 8.5, WHITE pages. Batman and Man-Bat! Detective Comics 384, 8.5, OW/W pages. Irv Novick cover from 1969. Superman 265, 9.6 (!), WHITE pages. What's really cool about this one is OH MY GOD LOOK AT THAT GRADE. Tales of Suspense 60, raw GD+. Graded by MCS, this is the second appearance of Hawkeye. Unexpected 135, 8.0, WHITE pages. I was shocked that it graded this low. I think sometimes they get offended if there are pressable defects and you don't get it pressed first. Grader's notes: "crease left bottom of front cover; multiple crease left top of whole book; multiple crease right center of back cover." Anyway, lesson learned. (I sent this in two years ago. BEAUTIFUL cover.) Wonder Woman 209, 9.4, WHITE pages. Retelling of the first Wonder Girl story from Wonder Woman #23. That's all for now! Here are the pics:

I've got some with scratches, too, lately. I've also heard from others, customers on eBay are starting to complain. Has CGC said anything about this? What causes it, why it's happening, what they plan to do about it?

Well, I guess they should say *something*. But no, I don't think the slabs will change for awhile. Irrespective of the vote here, most people just don't care. Hell, I voted above to fix the problem, but I don't really mind the Newton rings that much. It's pretty easy to angle the book so you don't see them. (Usually straight on.) At first, it was jarring, because I'm used to the old design - or the CBCS cases - that are crystal clear. But you get used to the rings effect pretty quick, and I find I can look past them. I'm surprised some people still think it's some sort of oil, or gas, or moisture issue. It's not. Newton rings are PURELY a visual illusion, created by light traveling through two different refractive surfaces, the outer case and the inner well. Now, I don't know how CBCS does it so there's no Newton rings, but they do. So eventually CGC will transition to a new design that also fixes the issue. And yeah, they'd probably do it faster if there was a serious problem, like with the Frankenslabs, which actually caused real damage. But most people just don't care. THAT'S why they keep telling the few people who DO care that it's "acceptable," I think ... because for most people, it just is. They aren't getting a lot of complaints, a lot of lost business, a lot of reholder issues. I'm sending in 40 comics this week, and 40 more next. I don't like the Newton rings, but they're not that bad, IMO. And sending slabs back is a real pain, even if I don't have to pay for it. Still, I think they should definitely respond to this thread. I'm surprised they haven't already.

Yeah, I've just had my first experience with them and their customer service is TERRIBLE. I placed an order for about $220.00 and was supposed to receive a 20% (?) discount for being a new customer. Discount didn't work, so I gently emailed them, asking for a fix. No response. I emailed again, no response. I used the online contact form, no response. And then again. And then I tried calling their 800 number and even left a message, as no one ever picked up. But they never called back. I finally reached someone on Facebook, and they wanted to give me a "coupon code" for my next order. I told them that wouldn't work, that I would like a refund for the amount. They stopped responding. So now I am working with my credit card company to reverse the charges and cancel the order. (FYI, the order was made five weeks ago, and includes comics that haven't released yet. So the fact that I haven't received anything yet is not the issue, only the missing discount.)

Great question! I haven't read 796 yet, which is blowing up on eBay, but I just heard he doesn't appear in that one, either, even though everyone keeps saying it is his "first appearance." (My LCS failed to pull it for me. Probably because they wanted to sell it above cover price.) Maybe th Red Goblin's first appearance will actually be 797? (One of the variant covers for 797 has the Red Goblin.) Or maybe it's 799, where "the mystery of the Red Goblin is finally revealed!" Anyway, I reckon the industry won't know until collectively we decide, probably in six months or a year, by bidding up the issue with the true first appearance until it costs more than the other potential first appearances.