Four Color #386 CGC 6.0

[VK]

I'm interested to hear what you guys think about the grade given this issue? I thought it was better, and didn't see any color breaks on the spine, which are notated in the grader's notes. Don't worry about hurting my feelings if you agree with the 6.0...I'm a big boy and can take it. I really want to know where this book went wrong.

 

 

http://pedigreecomics.com/detail.php?issue_id=18496

[divad]

It appears that there are two creases to the LRFC - 3/4" and 1" - those alone are going to limit the book to a 7.0 Scuffing along the REFC and COW pages are going to bring it down to 6.0 - I think it's accurately graded.

 

Otherwise, the scan is too small to see any detail. Reminds me of that certain boardie that fiddles with the contrast / brightness on his (not big enough) scans so you can't see any of the defects . . .

[Aces]

I press the link that's suppose to take you to the back cover.

It doesn't work for me.

[JazzMan]

The BACK button isn't the back cover....it's supposed to be the previous page.

[Aces]

The BACK button isn't the back cover....it's supposed to be the previous page.

Man.

They put it right up next to the scan so I thought...

[Point Five]

Reminds me of that certain boardie that fiddles with the contrast / brightness on his (not big enough) scans so you can't see any of the defects . . .

So you're saying this FF #72 in my sales thread isn't a 9.6? But just look at those sharp corners!

 

[VK]

I was hoping for at least a 7.0....still a nice book, IMO. Many of the others I have from the Shiflett collection a much superior in condition. Mr. Shiflett didn't even open many of the 380+ issues in the collection. Thanks for the grade Divad!

[divad]

I was hoping for at least a 7.0....still a nice book, IMO.

 

Indeed!

[divad]

Reminds me of that certain boardie that fiddles with the contrast / brightness on his (not big enough) scans so you can't see any of the defects . . .

So you're saying this FF #72 in my sales thread isn't a 9.6? But just look at those sharp corners!

 

$5

[VK]

Anyone else have any thoughts on this book?

[Transplant]

I agree. The corner creases kill grade at CGC. Also, CR/OW pages are a negative. In my experience this book might also have tanning covers inside. Combine all of that with the thumb creases on the FCRE and 6.0 is not out of the question. Plus it looks like it lost some cover gloss. I would probably say 6.5 but 6.0 could work.

[VK]

I don't understand why Doug would say that 'most dealers would call this a VF', unless he thought this was drastically undergraded. I know there is no tanning on the inside covers, and the cover gloss is still high. Does anyone think resubbing it might help?

[divad]

I don't understand why Doug would say that 'most dealers would call this a VF', unless he thought this was drastically undergraded. I know there is no tanning on the inside covers, and the cover gloss is still high. Does anyone think resubbing it might help?

 

Well, as to Doug's comments, it IS his SALES site, and he IS a full-time dealer - what do you expect him to say?

 

As to re-sub - not worth it. I think 8 times out of 10 it would come back as a 6.0, and as Transplant points out, the potential upside is only 1/2 point

[VK]

I expect some honesty. Don't laugh. Doug shouldn't have to oversell cheesy books. Just because it is his site, and he's a full time dealer doesn't mean he should lie to sell books. He seems to be quite knowledgeable, deals in high end or hard-to-find stuff, and has a good reputation. Am I missing something here? I mean it's like saying, well this is CGC's board, so the moderators won't allow CGC's grades to be undermined. I know that's no true, just like I'd like to think that Doug was being honest in all his auction descriptions, regardless of the CGC grade.

 

8 times out of 10 it will come back 6.0....if CGC was so infallible, it would be 10 out of 10. To do any less is a diservice, not to mention a glaring inconsistency.

 

And don't get me started on how Mark H. decides what is a pedigree and what isn't. Because I certainly don't agree with CGC on those points either. Mark blew it when he decided to do Chuck a favor by labeling his pallet of mish-mash stuff 'Mile High II'.....some pedigree......

[Transplant]

I expect some honesty. Don't laugh. Doug shouldn't have to oversell cheesy books. Just because it is his site, and he's a full time dealer doesn't mean he should lie to sell books. He seems to be quite knowledgeable, deals in high end or hard-to-find stuff, and has a good reputation. Am I missing something here? I mean it's like saying, well this is CGC's board, so the moderators won't allow CGC's grades to be undermined. I know that's no true, just like I'd like to think that Doug was being honest in all his auction descriptions, regardless of the CGC grade.

 

I don't think Doug is going overboard by expressing surprise that CGC graded lower than he expected. There are plenty of people who get surprised by CGC grades, higher and lower. Those are your books aren't they? If he suggested you have them graded to sell on the site, I don't what to tell you other than he probably genuinely thought they would grade higher.

 

8 times out of 10 it will come back 6.0....if CGC was so infallible, it would be 10 out of 10. To do any less is a diservice, not to mention a glaring inconsistency.

Nobody ever said CGC was infallible. They have human graders who analyze each book independently. I think most people will report that resubs get either the same grade or within .5 +/-, assuming no damage in between subs.

 

And don't get me started on how Mark H. decides what is a pedigree and what isn't. Because I certainly don't agree with CGC on those points either. Mark blew it when he decided to do Chuck a favor by labeling his pallet of mish-mash stuff 'Mile High II'.....some pedigree......

 

I don't think MH II is a pedigree just a noted collection.