WPPJames

1 hour ago, DR.X said:

not at all. I took those pics earlier tonight. it's our cloaking device.

LOL. Well, I'd say your trial would be a short one. Based on your admission of guilt and self supplied photographic evidence. But based on the success of the forum software upgrade so far, I expect that post as well as all incriminating photographic evidence to soon just disappear, never to be seen or heard from again. But in case it's not, the manhunt for you and your cohorts should be short. They can find you all hanging out drinking beer at the community cul-de-sac firepit. 

I just wish I had been invited.

4 hours ago, DR.X said:

The street light was bothering us so we decided to just pull he shielding back and cut the live wire. It was a site to see. People running everywhere. We then installed our own private light switch on the pole so it might be the only one in existance.

Yea, so.. that was a joke, right?

3 hours ago, carter3175 said:

I know this is not a modern comic but this is NOT a 9.9

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Captain-America-100-CGC-9-9/143410518528?hash=item2163eeda00:g:qwcAAOSwU7lfpDY8

 

 

This 9.8 looks better

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Captain-America-100-CGC-9-8-1968-Boston-Pedigree-D12-1-cm/351247613132?hash=item51c7fd3ccc:g:A7wAAOSwj0NUgz4y

 

I'm just saying the grading is not consistent at all

Yea definitely not a 9.9. As far as the 9.8 looking better, they don't show the back cover (really, you are trying to sell a book for $17.5k and you can't (won't!) do that). But also it has Off White to White pages. The 9.9 has White pages. Maybe that made a difference. If only subconsciously to the grader. It can make a big difference in the sales price for older, high $$$ books.

2 hours ago, valiantman said:

Buyers of raw are always hoping for 9.8s. 

CGC 9.6s are "guaranteed NOT 9.8" (that is, until it's cracked-pressed-regraded).

Raw books are very rarely 9.8, but the buyers are thinking...

Yea, but my point on that particular example was the seller of the raw book himself graded it as VF/NM-. So his best estimate on it was a 9.2. Sellers aren't generally known for undegrading their own books -- especially on eBay. Any buyer thinking they might later score a CGC 9.8 out of book sold as an 8.5 to 9.2 must also expect to hit the lottery every time he puts his $1 down at the gas station. So a raw 9.2 (maybe less) for $22. Or a slabbed 9.6 for $56. Not difficult to see which buyer got the much better deal.

EDIT: Of course it's entirely possible both were purchased by the same buyer. As I said, they did both sell on the same day.

19 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

IMO, in low-grade it knocks them a half-peg (0.5). In mid grade, possibly a whole grade. As usual, it depends on how severe the tearing is. This one looks pretty bad, but it's already low-grade.

Answered perfectly. Thanks!

6 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

4.0ish IMO.

Thanks. How much do you feel the tearing/separation around staples deducted? I have a couple more books that are similar and am trying to determine how much that matters.

Might not be the right forum for this, but I just ran across an example of how you can get some really good deals as a buyer on eBay. Or sometimes the opposite as a seller. I guess that's why we play the game. The following books sold on the exact same day. One raw book graded at VF to NM-, which seemed about right to me. Sold for $22. The other a 9.6 slabbed book for $56. It still amazes me when I see this happening. 

EDIT: Sorry, I just noticed the VF to NM- wasn't listed in the title. It was in the seller's description. "I consider it a VF to NM- ".

My main reason to post this is to help me learn how much staple separation damage matters. Cover is not detached at either staple. Although the top one does kind of look like it.

Certainly not arguing that you are getting screwed. But if he was a scammer when he bought it, why wait so long to initiate this return? Maybe he got short on cash after almost 6 months and was looking for a way to get some by trying to return items (screw over sellers) that he bought from a long time ago? Also, if he is a scammer he certainly isn't going to fall for any delay tactics. He'll know exactly how long he has to file a complaint. I hope it works out in your favor, but payment processers (Ebay; banks; etc) almost always side with the buyer.

2 hours ago, Galen130 said:

Scratch, or scuff.  Does that BC staining impact interior pages?

Somewhat. But to a lesser degree. I added another photo at top showing damage. I wasn't able to scan that one so the quality isn't as good as the others.

4 hours ago, bobotski said:

I nominate this thread

Damnit! I was already thinking about making a comment here about something as off topic and divisive as possible. And then after everyone jumped all over me, nominating this thread. And my evil genius that made it happen.

3.5. No on the press.

7.5 seems about right to me as well.

Mid-top front cover is not a tear. What would it be called? A "scratch"?

7.0

3 minutes ago, Point Five said:

These Comic Media romance books are great fun... I've posted about them in Gold before. The All-True Romance run from #11-20 is sprinked through with some hilariously racy, sleazy stories, and #11 features a drunken hookup cover (!) which is a classic on its own.
https://www.comics.org/series/12550/covers/

Not nearly the same racy wise, but I used to have a few Millie The Model comics, and similar type, that I thought were a lot of fun.

7 minutes ago, Gate13 said:

Thanks for your input. I figured this would be a tough one and judging by the views and lack of posts, I guess I was right... 😂 

Input will come in. It takes a first one to get things started. I don't mind being the sacrificial lamb 😎 I expect to be corrected soon.

Being married has destroyed any sense of pride I once had 🙁

Yea too bad on the back cover. This is a tough one for me. But I'll go first and throw out a 4.5.

On 12/10/2020 at 8:41 PM, Point Five said:

Nobody in the world is looking for this issue. But if they were, *this* is the copy they'd want!  

Well I'm damn sure looking for it now! I'm going with an 8.0. Maybe just because I think it's awesome (and it's an older book).

Maybe an 8.5?

Thanks ahead of time!

Curious to see if the opinions match the grade I was sold at. Which I agree was accurate.

2 hours ago, The-Collector said:

It's amazing how a lot of the defects seem to be minimized once hidden in a slab. The IH #181 is a perfect example. Looking at the front cover photo pre-slab and afterwards almost looks like two different books.

 

 

54 minutes ago, thunsicker said:

 

CGC's current policy on tape is to grade as if the tape isn't there.  Without the tape holding the 3/4 of the cover on it would be missing 3/4 of the front cover, ergo the .5 grade.  If the tear wasn't complete it would probably have gotten the 1.0-1.8 everyone was guessing.

That makes sense. With the tape on I just viewed it as a really large tear. But I now see that its all the way across and that section would be completely detached if not for the tape.

1 minute ago, kav said:

Maybe I should have read closer and stuff-part of my calculus is I know GG to be a rational sort and the other fellow seems to be rathet irrational with the f word and what not.

Now it's my turn to have misread. I thought the f word guy was the seller (GG?). Who I don't know at all. But yea, I agree, when people are stupid enough to get themselves banned by insulting the entire forum by throwing out f-bombs, I usually find it difficult to listen to any points they have afterwards.