• 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.

Is this a CGC 6.5?

Started by joe_collector,

20 posts in this topic

joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
  • Author
Posted
i don't see it, i just think it's covered by the corner creases. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

Well from my view, there is a moon-shaped chunk missing, along with a slice of the bottom corner, which was probably a crease that broke off.

 

I find this interesting because I've got an ASM 129 that is near-perfect except for a tiny piece of bottom-right corner that has flaked off. I got a super deal on it in the 90's and always wondered what CGC would grade it.

 

If this flaked, pieces out, creased ASM 122 got a 6.5, then it's upwards from there, definitely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aces

Aces

Posted
Posted

It only a 1/8 chip out.

Those are hard to grade.

VF but 1/8 chip out... F+ seems within reason.

 

I wouldn't buy it.

I don't like that top staple either. tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
  • Author
Posted
what if it was a "marvel chip", but id have a ASM 53 with a chip missing out of the LRC, otherwise the book is 9.2-9.4. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

27_laughing.gif Yeah, a Marvel Chip accompanied by a mass of creases. Coincidence? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigMan

BigMan

Posted
Posted

Hmmm the piece could also be folded underneath CGC does not correct those type of problems and if thats the case then Fine+ would be okay.. confused-smiley-013.gif If the piece was missing I would sell it as a VG/Fine raw... thumbsup2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aces

Aces

Posted
Posted

It's a bigger piece. 1/4 inch it appears.

 

But I like yours better. Nice and white and glossy. No COW...

 

But the size of the missing piece may hurt the grade more.

Grade isn't everything unless you are buying a big dollar book for investing.

I've seen nice 9.0s and 9.2s, and I've seen some 9.4s I wouldn't want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Perry-migration

Perry-migration

Posted
Posted

I think that CGC graded it accurately. We're just not used to seeing slabbed moderns and bronzes with this kind of defect.

 

If it were a Silver age book, in my estimation, that's exactly what they would grade it. That bottom corner defect is more in line with what is usually encountered in the way of corner defects on Silver age books.

 

If we don't curve the scale in different perspectives on SIlver age vs. Bronze age, and grade the two different eras with a different eye, the 6.5 seems to be right on the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
  • Author
Posted
If we don't curve the scale in different perspectives on SIlver age vs. Bronze age, and grade the two different eras with a different eye, the 6.5 seems to be right on the money.

 

But it's obvious CGC does in most cases, but not in others. It's all very inconsistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldGuy

OldGuy

Posted
Posted

But it's obvious CGC does in most cases, but not in others. It's all very inconsistent.

 

Is it really "all very inconsistent'? Or is it sometimes a little inconsistent? With the thousands off books graded by CGC I'd have to say that the vast majority I've seen seem to be right on. I like jumping on their mistakes as much as the next guy, but it seems to me that they are right far more often the they are wrong. confused-smiley-013.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Is it really "all very inconsistent'? Or is it sometimes a little inconsistent?

 

When it comes to "gray area" factors that I am looking for guidance on, CGC is just as inconsistent as raw comic sellers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sfilosa

sfilosa

Posted
Posted

I Love the term MARVEL CHIPPING.

 

One, sellers will say Marvel Chipping on Non-Marvel books. Which really just means, PIECE OUT OF COVER.

 

Two, I don't know for sure, but wasn't Marvel Chipping a printing defect only in the 50's and early 60's? Even if the book is a Marvel book, I'm sure there is a date (maybe 1965 or 1966) when this stopped being a problem. In other words, can you have Marvel Chipping on a late Silver-Age or Bronze-Age book?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drbanner

drbanner

Posted
Posted
In other words, can you have Marvel Chipping on a late Silver-Age or Bronze-Age book?

 

I don't think so...I'll have to consult my grading guide when I get home to see if it ties any timeframe to the definition of the defect (I think it's in there?), but I don't recall any books with Marvel Chipping after about 1965 or so. However, it is prominent on pre-65 Marvels...and Timely's! Strangely enough, it affects the cover as well as a couple of the interior pages on my beater copy of All Select 1 shown below? confused-smiley-013.gif

 

all1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lantern

Lantern

Posted
Posted

I'll have to consult my grading guide when I get home to see if it ties any timeframe to the definition of the defect (I think it's in there?),

 

From the Glossary of the current Comic Book Grading Guide:

 

"It was dubbed Marvel chipping because it can be found quite often on Marvel comics from the late '50's and early '60's but can also occur with any company's comic books from the late 1940's through the middle 1960's."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing