dm3

👍

👍

@SuperBird i fully agree. At 4.8k it’s priced very aggressively I am passing on it PS thanks for your thread on the early Action collection you have. It’s a great collection and wonderful thread,

Thanks everyone for the insightful comments. 😄

Hi this is a Bat#47 7.0 on eBay. it is overpriced right now, but just in case it drops, should I be concerned with the bit of tape on a 7.0 GA? “ Small piece re-attached with tape on cover.” here is a photo from the eBay listing, it’s currently listing for 4.8k which is riding a bit high even for this grade.... Please let me know what you think about the tape and/or the price i have always liked the cover on this one, i have not purchased the grader notes yet. thanks

Crazy high grade GA Batman at comiconnect. #4 on, many in NM. here are some examples some pedigree Central Valley and Billy Wright they most certainly don’t belong in this thread. No ultra low grades here....

Thanks for clarifying this.

@GreatCaesarsGhost I agree. the comic sold for 65k, but with buyers premium it’s 78k. “Buyer's Premium will be added to each successful bid. For this sale: 20% of the successful bid ”!!! I wasn’t going above 50k i had guessed 50k-70k on this one, but the 20% premium ruined the purchase valuation on this one there are some nice ones at mycomicshop.com (4.0) and another 3.5 at comicconnect. the mycomicshop 4.0 has a nice presentation and is signed on the back. The consignments at mycomicshop are only 3% buyers premium and the 4.0 #1 is not consigned (no premium)

@lighthouse thanks. This is great information for future purchases of CGC GAs that are rusted. is there a way to find out the date when the CGC comic was slabbed? Is it done through the UPC code lookup ? i don’t know much about CGC but have been collecting for a few decades.

Thanks for the wise advice @GreatCaesarsGhost What you say above is consistent with my experience regarding the bidding I have looked at the other non restored low grades and you are right. There’s a huge variance in eye appeal. i was glad this one had a complete original back cover. regarding the rust, I don’t see it in the grader notes. Just a lot about the obvious tape. I’m glad to hear about the tape as well. There’s a lot of it......I was mostly concerned about the glue as a solvent

Thanks @lou_fine i agree. Unfortunately it’s most likely going much higher. I’m guessing at 50-70k based on the price history.

Thanks @Buzzetta i have seen this rusting aspect in raw books but never had a CGC with rust to determine if it occurs in the slab

Hi all, I wanted to get some feedback on the positives and negatives of buying an ultra low grade GA key like the BM #1 1.5 auctioning off at Heritage. The issue has a lot of tape, holding the spine together (completely split) as well as the centerfold in place Does the tape and glue on the tape have a potential to “degrade” the comic over time (ie, like any solvent could do to paper stock, over long periods of time)? There’s a lot of tape on this one..... thanks in advance

Is that a small left edge tear on back, middle, right at words “High king” ?

Thanks again BomberBob. It's working for me. I won't be sending in my batch for a while, but when I get the grade back on it, I will post an update. It will be interesting to see how they grade these tears. on a separate note I noticed a lot less valiant universe comics in the CGC census (100s rather than 1000s). . Is this because people are still in the process of getting them graded, lower print run (as an independent), or a combination of both?

Hi Kevin, thanks for the information. I just checked and you are 100% right. The folder pin tears do not align with the internal gripper pokes. I had assumed earlier that they were roughly lined up and one of the same defect. They are completely separate. are folder PIN tears considered a "deductible" defect using the 9.8 as a reference? ive never seen so many gripper pokes on a comic. They did an awful job on this issue. i don't have access to the CGC registry, but are there any 9.9s or 10s in ASM 361 (i.e., would they allow such a manufacturing mess on a 9.9 or 10)?

Thanks joeypost, is there any consistency between the 9.6s vs the 9.8s relative to the ones that you have seen. Those ones in the pics are between 1-2mm in length. A mentioned earlier they are like little tears.

"Why does CGC need to publish anything about how they grade defects ? It's not an analytical science, it's a subjective science. It really depends on the condition of the rest of the book. Also, the severity of the specific defect will always be different. Your gripper holes are large and look more like tears. Others may be hardly visibly. They cannot assign the same factor to both. You are trying to ascertain the grade of your book before you send it in. My advice would be to submit it, with other books, in a 9.8 prescreen. If they don't feel it is a 9.8, the book will be returned without being slabbed. All books returned without being slabbed are charged a nominal fee (5 bucks ?)." hi BomberBob I've been collecting for 30 years, and believe it or not, I've never had any of my books graded. I'm just trying to understand the aspect of basic consistency or lack of it. I did not know about the prescreen option. That's good to know.

Hi blowupthemoon, thanks for the list. The tiny bottom edge cut on back edge bottom (it's under the word "trademark" on mine) is around 1mm the one at the red area bottom is around 2mm- very small to the naked eye.

Thanks lazyboy. Appreciate the comment. It does look like there is no clear consensus on how this specific manufacturing defect will affect the grade. CGC really does need to publish some very detailed grading criteria that specifically addresses how many types of common manufacturing defects affect the ultimate grade.

Hi James, thanks. I appreciate the feedback. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on the exact criteria that CGC uses for their grading processes, i.e. There are a lot of grey areas. I understand this is a subjective process, but they do need to standardize on some basic grading processes especially relative to very specific common manufacturing issues, which are very very clearly definable and controlled, meaning they could easily be quantifiable into the final grade. these tears are less than 1 mm. The zoom makes them look very very large. I'm not upset about them because I bought the comic book from the store way back then at cover price. I did read that other thread on the same subject (about CGC publishing a book with examples of how they grade, how the magnitude of defects differentially affect the final grade, etc). I understand why they will never publish a book, as it was pointed out clearly in that thread. However, they really do need to rethink how to present their rating system in light of these deterministic manufacturing defects. i also read a thread about another common manufacturing defect on asm 361 where the back cover print alignment is "rolled" to the front. I read that that defect should **not** affect the grade, being that it is not spine role. My 361 has no such "roll". It has perfect front/back spine alignment, Why is one (manufacturing bindery tear) penalized, whereas the other ("roll") is not. Who decides which manufacturing defects are penalized and which defects are not? Where are these standards published? Is it possible for one grader to give one type of defect a pass while another grader to penalize the same type of manufacturing defect? Are they trained on these types of manufacturing defect so that grading is rendered consistently. i don't expect you to answer these questions, and thank you for your comment..... I'm just playing devils advocate, to highlight very specific grading biases that simply don't make sense. I believe that given this lax grading style, that there will not be any consistency across grading of comics with these types of specific manufacturing defects.. Since grading is ultimately subjective, there is no answer to these very relevant questions.

Thanks. I've seen these before on interior pages, never on an external cover. It looks like the hole might have been so close to the edge that it hemorrhaged a tear. I would be ok with a 9.6. It's too bad CGC doesn't have some formal guidelines for some of the common manufacturing defects, and to what degree they can affect the grade, and what severity is acceptable at what grade. if the grader is having a bad day, i can see this not turning out too good 8>( is there a website with common manufacturing defect photos.? thanks again

On the first photo there's 2 pick holes. The second one is hard to see, under the word "trademark" . Both along the bottom edge. FC doesn't have the holes, but some interior pages do,

Hi all, On the back cover, there are very tiny pick holes, where the paper "grabber" of the printing press grabs the paper. Sorry for the obtuse descripton. Please see the photos below. In real life these pick holes are very small. what does this do to the CGC grade of the book? Otherwise it's a 9.6 or 9.8. thanks.

Hi, i need a modern age top loader for shipping out a comic book. does anyone have a suggestion for a good current modern age comic book top loader? thanks in advance