• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Silver Age Comics and Tanning

Started by spookley,

46 posts in this topic

arexcrooke

arexcrooke

Posted
Posted
CGC kills books with tanning, but dust shadows are basically ignored, so telling them apart can be pretty important when it comes to grading or pricing a book with these defects.

You ain`t just whistling dixie. Here is the back cover to one of the most expensive comics ever sold. It got a 9.6 from CGC.

 

Backcover.jpg

 

Tim should have pointed this out in his post above. Maybe he was asleep at the wheel. :baiting:

:sorry:

:sick:

which book is that Tim? GA DC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Inaflash

Inaflash

Posted
Posted
Nevermind. Found one...the bottom edge is the best example.

 

Tanning will often get progressively lighter as it moves further into the book away from the edge. Dust shadows will be one color, with a definite boundary line.

 

Detective_291back.jpg

 

Thanks October (thumbs u

The differences to me are subtle---I don't know if I would be confident when looking

at a book by myself.

Would the top edge be tanning also? Kind of looks similar to my example except that it is more of a straight edge rather than slanted. (shrug)

 

A lot of the time tanning will be on all of the edges, but not always. It can be hard to tell them apart, but once you see enough examples of both you'll pick up on it.

 

Also, a dust shadow will not affect pages and books with tanning usually affect the pages as well although not always. There are a lot of white paged Mile Highes with dust shadows. I don't mind them on the back cover very much at all, but they need to be very light on the front cover for me to buy the book. Tanning is a whole different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TeddieMercede

TeddieMercede

Posted
Posted
CGC kills books with tanning, but dust shadows are basically ignored, so telling them apart can be pretty important when it comes to grading or pricing a book with these defects.

You ain`t just whistling dixie. Here is the back cover to one of the most expensive comics ever sold. It got a 9.6 from CGC.

 

Backcover.jpg

 

Tim should have pointed this out in his post above. Maybe he was asleep at the wheel. :baiting:

:sorry:

:sick:

which book is that Tim? GA DC?

 

Pretty Sure that is the Church Flash #1 CGC 9.6. If that was a Silver Age book graded within the last couple years no way that book would have gotten anywhere near a 9.6. Golden Age well, those get treated a little differently. I have an early 60s Silver Age DC Key that has 9.4 written all over it except for the slightest dust shadow on the back of the bottom cover that got downgraded to a 9.0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tth2

tth2

Posted
Posted
CGC kills books with tanning, but dust shadows are basically ignored, so telling them apart can be pretty important when it comes to grading or pricing a book with these defects.

You ain`t just whistling dixie. Here is the back cover to one of the most expensive comics ever sold. It got a 9.6 from CGC.

 

Backcover.jpg

 

Tim should have pointed this out in his post above. Maybe he was asleep at the wheel. :baiting:

:sorry:

:sick:

which book is that Tim? GA DC?

 

Pretty Sure that is the Church Flash #1 CGC 9.6.

Correct.

 

If that was a Silver Age book graded within the last couple years no way that book would have gotten anywhere near a 9.6. Golden Age well, those get treated a little differently. I have an early 60s Silver Age DC Key that has 9.4 written all over it except for the slightest dust shadow on the back of the bottom cover that got downgraded to a 9.0.

I dunno, Eric. I've seen some SA books with dust shadows get pretty high grades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TeddieMercede

TeddieMercede

Posted
Posted
CGC kills books with tanning, but dust shadows are basically ignored, so telling them apart can be pretty important when it comes to grading or pricing a book with these defects.

You ain`t just whistling dixie. Here is the back cover to one of the most expensive comics ever sold. It got a 9.6 from CGC.

 

Backcover.jpg

 

Tim should have pointed this out in his post above. Maybe he was asleep at the wheel. :baiting:

:sorry:

:sick:

which book is that Tim? GA DC?

 

Pretty Sure that is the Church Flash #1 CGC 9.6.

Correct.

 

If that was a Silver Age book graded within the last couple years no way that book would have gotten anywhere near a 9.6. Golden Age well, those get treated a little differently. I have an early 60s Silver Age DC Key that has 9.4 written all over it except for the slightest dust shadow on the back of the bottom cover that got downgraded to a 9.0.

I dunno, Eric. I've seen some SA books with dust shadows get pretty high grades.

 

Tim, just in my limited experience submitting books Ive found that early on CGC treated tanning and dust shadows very differently then they have the last couple of years. Early on books could get away with almost no downgrade (that AF 15 CGC 9.4 with the tanning notation) for tanning and others with dust shadows not downgraded at all. In the past couple of years Ive found books with interior tanning absolutely get killed and books with dust shadows downgraded a couple ticks whereas before they may not have been. Again this is based on my experience submitting, and while I am not a huge submitter Ive sent in books periodically over the past 6 or 7 years.

 

It also means whenever I see a book that has a hint of either I make sure to call for graders notes and see if its an old or new label and grading date. Not to disparage the owner of that AF15 with the tanning but from the pictures of it that I remember if that book was sent in now I dont think there is anyway it gets above a 9.0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mjacobs8

mjacobs8

Posted
Posted
Check this out.

RAD3861320071212_42841.jpg

That is a very bad dust shadow, but..

RAD9CD2220071212_42840.jpg

 

That book looks to be around a 9.6 without the dust shadow no ?

 

 

:o

I'm going to have to ask to see back covers on every book from now on.

How do you think I feel ? I'm the sucker that won it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cd4ever

cd4ever

Posted
Posted
Check this out.

RAD3861320071212_42841.jpg

That is a very bad dust shadow, but..

RAD9CD2220071212_42840.jpg

 

That book looks to be around a 9.6 without the dust shadow no ?

If I pulled that book out a box of mine and graded it, it would get a 7.0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tth2

tth2

Posted
Posted
I think it`s a pretty nice 9.2. It`s not like you bought a 9.6 and paid 9.6 prices and then found out the back was like that. (shrug)

Actually, if it was not a Pac Coast ped I would have passed on it.

If I bought 9.2s, I would buy 9.2s with front covers like that all day. The dust shadows on the back cover wouldn`t bother me on a 9.2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spookley

spookley

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I think it`s a pretty nice 9.2. It`s not like you bought a 9.6 and paid 9.6 prices and then found out the back was like that. (shrug)

Actually, if it was not a Pac Coast ped I would have passed on it.

If I bought 9.2s, I would buy 9.2s with front covers like that all day. The dust shadows on the back cover wouldn`t bother me on a 9.2.

 

:o

Tim would consider a 9.2

:baiting:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
COI

COI

Posted
Posted
I think it`s a pretty nice 9.2. It`s not like you bought a 9.6 and paid 9.6 prices and then found out the back was like that. (shrug)

Actually, if it was not a Pac Coast ped I would have passed on it.

If I bought 9.2s, I would buy 9.2s with front covers like that all day. The dust shadows on the back cover wouldn`t bother me on a 9.2.

 

Why Tim? I understand that 9.6's cost a heck of a lot more and that a 9.2 is a POS anyway, but every grade has its price, and since 9.2's are more plentiful, why not hold out for a better copy? I collect 9.0's and 9.2's and I'm pretty picky. Just because I may not insist on the "best" certified copy, that doesn't mean I don't want the best 'bang for my buck'. Even people who collect these lowly 9.2's have some standards. :baiting:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing