The Chicago Jackpot #4

[adamstrange]

CGC doesn't consider it, as production related defect, as disqualifying a book from 9.2.

 

But I do.

A tear is one thing, but when there's missing paper, it makes no difference to me whether it happened at the bindery or after purchase.

 

Fair enough. But then your complaint isn't really with this book specifically but with CGC's grading standards?

[nearmint]

CGC doesn't consider it, as production related defect, as disqualifying a book from 9.2.

 

But I do.

A tear is one thing, but when there's missing paper, it makes no difference to me whether it happened at the bindery or after purchase.

 

Fair enough. But then your complaint isn't really with this book specifically but with CGC's grading standards?

 

Overall, I'm very much in agreement with CGC's grading standards, but yes, on this point we differ. This book is just a good example.

[adamstrange]

CGC doesn't consider it, as production related defect, as disqualifying a book from 9.2.

 

But I do.

A tear is one thing, but when there's missing paper, it makes no difference to me whether it happened at the bindery or after purchase.

 

Fair enough. But then your complaint isn't really with this book specifically but with CGC's grading standards?

 

Overall, I'm very much in agreement with CGC's grading standards, but yes, on this point we differ. This book is just a good example.

 

Thanks. Just checking in case there was something else I missed in the scan or that someone knew first-hand about the ook.

[selegue]

Have the Archie bubble in the upper left corner and this would have been an even better cover, great as it is.

 

Flee could probably move that unfortunately placed electrode for you oglers -- although the little white pointer on top of it is pretty funny. I can picture Wertham saying, "For those who know how to look..."

 

Jack

[Straw-Man]

I was looking at this copy which is coming up soon on Heritage and really wished this would have been a full cover image because it's some great work.

 

 

 

Nice copy. Overgraded but still nice.

 

 

you know you'd be callin' it a 9.4 if you had it raw. [your birthday's over; expect no kindness this week!!!!!!!!!!!].

[Moondog]

I was looking at this copy which is coming up soon on Heritage and really wished this would have been a full cover image because it's some great work.

 

 

 

Nice copy. Overgraded but still nice.

 

 

you know you'd be callin' it a 9.4 if you had it raw. [your birthday's over; expect no kindness this week!!!!!!!!!!!].

 

You've obviously seen through my ruse, Billy!

 

I think the upper left corner is a ding/chip not a bindery defect. Ergo 8.5 tops.

[The Black Hand ®]

Two years from now, that will be a 9.4 the way grading revisionism is moving along.For now, because of the chip and what looks like tear, it's an 8.0-8.5. Jackpot 4 is an interesting book. It's been constantly touted as an earlier Archie appearance than it really is and there seems to be a relatively decent supply of them, though they're not growing on trees. It's a really good reading book. All the stories are quite good and it's a fairly cool cover.I believe it's about the fourth appearance of Archie and has the little bubble of Archies face which could be called the first cover appearance of Archie, at least it's the first non cover involved appearance of his head. I Always look at Pep 36 in terms of first true cover appearance, or at least first involved cover appearance. Pep 36, is probably one of the most significant passing of the torch covers I've seen, it has everything, Archie, the Shield and the Hangman, all drawn by Bob Montana. This, of course, is just an opinion of mine and there are other schools of thought on this, all completly valid.

[adamstrange]

I was looking at this copy which is coming up soon on Heritage and really wished this would have been a full cover image because it's some great work.

 

 

 

Nice copy. Overgraded but still nice.

 

 

you know you'd be callin' it a 9.4 if you had it raw. [your birthday's over; expect no kindness this week!!!!!!!!!!!].

 

You've obviously seen through my ruse, Billy!

 

I think the upper left corner is a ding/chip not a bindery defect. Ergo 8.5 tops.

 

The tear at the UL has the look of a classic bindery tear -- and the chip out is of the type that often happens with deep bindery tears. If CGC thought otherwise I expect they would grade the book as something less than a 9.2, whether or not it was a pedigree. Your mileage may vary from CGC as to how bindery tears (and resulting chips) should be factored in an overall grade but absent seeing the book in person CGC appears to be consistent in their approach in this instance.

[MrBedrock]

I was looking at this copy which is coming up soon on Heritage and really wished this would have been a full cover image because it's some great work.

 

 

 

Nice copy. Overgraded but still nice.

 

 

you know you'd be callin' it a 9.4 if you had it raw. [your birthday's over; expect no kindness this week!!!!!!!!!!!].

 

You've obviously seen through my ruse, Billy!

 

I think the upper left corner is a ding/chip not a bindery defect. Ergo 8.5 tops.

 

The tear at the UL has the look of a classic bindery tear -- and the chip out is of the type that often happens with deep bindery tears. If CGC thought otherwise I expect they would grade the book as something less than a 9.2, whether or not it was a pedigree. Your mileage may vary from CGC as to how bindery tears (and resulting chips) should be factored in an overall grade but absent seeing the book in person CGC appears to be consistent in their approach in this instance.

I agree.

[Straw-Man]

I was looking at this copy which is coming up soon on Heritage and really wished this would have been a full cover image because it's some great work.

 

 

 

Nice copy. Overgraded but still nice.

 

 

you know you'd be callin' it a 9.4 if you had it raw. [your birthday's over; expect no kindness this week!!!!!!!!!!!].

 

You've obviously seen through my ruse, Billy!

 

I think the upper left corner is a ding/chip not a bindery defect. Ergo 8.5 tops.

 

i also disagree with the 9.2, but i do think it looks 9.0'ish from the front scan.

[Moondog]

I was looking at this copy which is coming up soon on Heritage and really wished this would have been a full cover image because it's some great work.

 

 

 

Nice copy. Overgraded but still nice.

 

 

you know you'd be callin' it a 9.4 if you had it raw. [your birthday's over; expect no kindness this week!!!!!!!!!!!].

 

You've obviously seen through my ruse, Billy!

 

I think the upper left corner is a ding/chip not a bindery defect. Ergo 8.5 tops.

 

The tear at the UL has the look of a classic bindery tear -- and the chip out is of the type that often happens with deep bindery tears. If CGC thought otherwise I expect they would grade the book as something less than a 9.2, whether or not it was a pedigree. Your mileage may vary from CGC as to how bindery tears (and resulting chips) should be factored in an overall grade but absent seeing the book in person CGC appears to be consistent in their approach in this instance.

 

 

I ask you, who among us would buy this book raw at 9.2 and pay the appropriate price?

 

I know I wouldn't.

 

 

 

[The Black Hand ®]

There seems to be some scuffing that shows up on the black part of the logo, is that on the case or the comic?

[MrBedrock]

 

I ask you, who among us would buy this book raw at 9.2 and pay the appropriate price?

 

I know I wouldn't.

 

 

It hasn't sold at the appropriate price graded!

Maybe the appropriate price should be lowered.

[The Black Hand ®]

It's a great book but it's not in the same class as Pep 22 and Archie 1. I've seen auction house and some dealers and sellers trying to push it a if it's on equal footing but it's not. I'm a big MLJ/Archie fan, but it's a poor relation to MLJ's big two.

[MrBedrock]

It's a great book but it's not in the same class as Pep 22 and Archie 1. I've seen auction house and some dealers and sellers trying to push it a if it's on equal footing but it's not. I'm a big MLJ/Archie fan, but it's a poor relation to MLJ's big two.

That's what I was trying to get at. Early MLJ Archie issues are routinely very hot commodities. But, because of the incorrect info, this book has been conspicuous in its UNdesirability in relation to guide. A great book, but very overpriced...

reminiscent of Adventure 72, Special Edition 1, Mystery Men #1 (after the HUGE price increase a few years back) etc.

[The Black Hand ®]

It's a great book but it's not in the same class as Pep 22 and Archie 1. I've seen auction house and some dealers and sellers trying to push it a if it's on equal footing but it's not. I'm a big MLJ/Archie fan, but it's a poor relation to MLJ's big two.

That's what I was trying to get at. Early MLJ Archie issues are routinely very hot commodities. But, because of the incorrect info, this book has been conspicuous in its UNdesirability in relation to guide. A great book, but very overpriced...

reminiscent of Adventure 72, Special Edition 1, Mystery Men #1 (after the HUGE price increase a few years back) etc.

 

 

:o We are in agreement! Wowweeeee!

[MrBedrock]

It's a great book but it's not in the same class as Pep 22 and Archie 1. I've seen auction house and some dealers and sellers trying to push it a if it's on equal footing but it's not. I'm a big MLJ/Archie fan, but it's a poor relation to MLJ's big two.

That's what I was trying to get at. Early MLJ Archie issues are routinely very hot commodities. But, because of the incorrect info, this book has been conspicuous in its UNdesirability in relation to guide. A great book, but very overpriced...

reminiscent of Adventure 72, Special Edition 1, Mystery Men #1 (after the HUGE price increase a few years back) etc.

 

 

:o We are in agreement! Wowweeeee!

It must be the lack of nicotine!

[The Black Hand ®]

So the book sold for 17,975.00.

[G.A.tor]

8.5 with that much missing paper TL

[G.A.tor]

So the book sold for 17,975.00.

nope, did not meet reserve...it is available for BIN at that price (or an offer less 5% )