One ugly VERY FINE MINUS 7.5

[Shield]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2192726396&category=68

 

Note the back cover. Yikes! Way overgraded, in my opinion.

[sfilosa]

Now you want people to grade the back cover too?

 

What are you thinking?

 

 

As has been said many times, dirt on the back cover has almost no affect on the grade. And wear on the back cover doesn't affect the grade anywhere as much as wear on the front cover or spine.

 

 

[ubiquiti]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2192726396&category=68

 

Note the back cover. Yikes! Way overgraded, in my opinion.

I agree.

That is a 6.5 at best.

I have an X-Men 64 that actually is better looking than that one - less spine stress, nice corners, but the back cover is similar to that one, though not quite as bad.

It is cgc graded 6.5 - and it had white pages.

 

Go figure.

[fantastic_four]

I have an X-Men 64 that actually is better looking than that one - less spine stress, nice corners, but the back cover is similar to that one, though not quite as bad.

It is cgc graded 6.5 - and it had white pages.

 

Did you call them for the notes?

 

CGC doesn't seem to downgrade for dirt/soiling. I wonder whether it's because they know that it's not permanent and can be removed in an undetectable way?

[uclapeterg]

Are you trying to compare a book from the 60s to a book published in 1940? I didn't think so.

[Shield]

I agree with your point, but that book is overgraded for any year, period. VF- is a pretty nice copy of a book; that one isn't.

[ubiquiti]

Naw....

I "unslabbed" it anyways.

Got it for like $25 and wanted to read it.

[ubiquiti]

Are you trying to compare a book from the 60s to a book published in 1940? I didn't think so.

Only comparing similar defects.

As far as I'm concerned - grade should be the same across the board regardless of how old it is.

I don't buy the "if this book were printed in the 60's it would be a 6.5, but since it is SOOO old and printed in the 40s - it's a 7.5"

Thats bullcrap.

[uclapeterg]

I don't agree with that policy either. Please don't take it the wrong way. But CGC has stated their policy and I feel the book is "pretty" consistent with that policy. Give me an example of a book graded 7.5 in the 1940s that is far better or worse than this one and we can talk from there.

 

For comparison sake, I do have a 9.2 Fantastic Four that has a really dirty back cover so it does happen. From that point on, I have asked for back cover scans from Ebayers.

 

Also, heritage scans tend to magnify the effects with the scans being larger thanlife. With the few books I have bought from them, I feel the books look better in person than their scans.

[fantastic_four]

For comparison sake, I do have a 9.2 Fantastic Four that has a really dirty back cover so it does happen. From that point on, I have asked for back cover scans from Ebayers.

 

I've got a 9.4 and a 9.6 with an untrivial amount of back cover dirt. There's also the Detective 38 CGC 9.4 with the VERY heavy dust shadows on the back.

[uclapeterg]

Are you comparing books from two different eras?

[Shield]

I don't agree with that policy either. Please don't take it the wrong way. But CGC has stated their policy and I feel the book is "pretty" consistent with that policy. Give me an example of a book graded 7.5 in the 1940s that is far better or worse than this one and we can talk from there.

 

These look much better, IMO:

 

7.5 sample #1 7.5 sample #2

 

 

 

[WEBHEAD]

Now you want people to grade the back cover too?

 

What are you thinking?

 

 

As has been said many times, dirt on the back cover has almost no affect on the grade. And wear on the back cover doesn't affect the grade anywhere as much as wear on the front cover or spine.

 

 

This is what drives me nuts about CGC grading sometimes.

I had a 9.0 looking book from the cover, but unseen finger prints and a some smaoll amount of dirt ( they again you could not see) on the back cover drove it to a 6.5. ( check out my no prize contest thread) The back of this book looks like it was piled in a heap, it even appears to have a rusty staple mark... at 7.5 more like a 4.0

 

 

just my opinion

 

WEBEHEAD

[Tomega]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2192726396&category=68

 

Note the back cover. Yikes! Way overgraded, in my opinion.

 

How is this possible - I would have graded it a 4.5, tops 5.0. I know there is an inconsistency between eras ( which is WRONG CGC) but this seems extreme.

 

Tom