• 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.

This is VF+?

Started by Fan4Fan,

18 posts in this topic

Fan4Fan

Fan4Fan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Even with that, there is obvious color-break on the upper overwrap, decent rounding on all corners, some color fade on the lower left corner, and two color-breaking spine stresses.

 

Since I've been chastised about it before, I won't mention the side-to-side miswrap tongue.gif

 

I just keep wondering why I even entertain the idea of ordering sight-unseen when seeing things doesn't instill me with a great deal of confidence. 893frustrated.gif

 

Thanks,

Fan4Fan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted

First off, we don't know what the grade on this book is because as several have pointed out, the scan is too small. Scans below 150 dpi almost always are. But let's just assume the scan shows everything and go with what's visible and figure out what the grade on just the scan should be.

 

Can you make an attempt to assign numerical severities to each defect? Luckily, the scan is almost the size of a comic, so it shouldn't be too tough. If you'll do that much, then we'll cross-reference those against the VF+ guidelines in the Overstreet Grading Guide and see what the most likely grade is using that. Here are the metrics you need to assign in grading this scan (not the book! We can't see the book, only the scan):

 

  • Obvious color-break on the upper overwrap -- how many color breaks, and how long is each one?
  • Decent rounding on all corners -- rounding can be measured with an arc, but that's too hard, so let's do it by estimating the length it extends along both affected edges and take the greater of the two lengths.
  • Some color fade on the lower left corner -- I can't really see this on the scan...where is this?
  • Two color-breaking spine stresses -- how long is each one?
  • Side-to-side miswrap -- I'm very familiar with FF #25, and this is about as good as the wrap gets on it. Take a look at the right side of the book...notice that there's only approximately 1/16" space to the right of the Comics Code symbol. If the book were 1/8" of an inch further right, then that would be partially cut off, and the graphic box with the issue number in it would be flush up against the side. For this issue, I find the wrap on this copy to be quite good...a lot of these early Marvels were laid out with the cover graphics too widely spread out to ever really get a perfect cover wrap on 90% of the copy run.

If you'll assist with assigning severities to the defects, I'll oblige by mapping the severities to the standards in the Overstreet Grading Guide. I predict that it'll be somewhere between 8.0 and 9.0 using that standard, but I'm not sure yet...we'll see once we can reach a consensus on the measurements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fan4Fan

Fan4Fan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

OK, this is where I'm going to get into trouble (and why I dropped out of grad school)....

 

What is wrong with hunches?

 

Granted, there are objective measurements that can be made (arc of rounding, length of crease, etc.).

 

However, we all seem to agree that one VF+ is not necessarily the same as another.

 

So, that suggests flaws in the grading system (which have been pointed out elsewhere).

 

True, I should be using the official standard (and strive to improve that), but I think that - by pointing out grades (assuming that the standard was strictly applied in assigning those greeds) that seem generous - I am doing that.

 

To get the kind of measurements you seek, I would agree that a better scan is required.

 

However, lacking that, I just went with my gut and had a hard time seeing that as a VF+.

 

Thanks,

Fan4Fan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
What is wrong with hunches?

 

Everybody has different hunches. If we grade on hunches, everybody's grades are different. The goal should be that our grading is all the same, otherwise buyers, sellers, and certification companies all end up disagreeing with each other. That's why Overstreet has been working for decades to create and refine a set of grading standards.

 

The fact that hunches are a bad way to grade should be evident to you simply based upon the very existence of this thread--you had one hunch, and Rob Roter had another. Hunches are inexact and almost always subjective...so if you really believe that comic book grading should be based upon hunches...then you've got no room to complain when you think somebody has graded differently than you would.

 

 

However, we all seem to agree that one VF+ is not necessarily the same as another.

 

So, that suggests flaws in the grading system (which have been pointed out elsewhere).

 

I don't get your point. Do you mean one CGC VF+ is not necessarily the same as another...that your VF+ is not the same as my VF+...or do you mean something else? Who were you thinking of as having graded these different VF+ comics?

 

 

True, I should be using the official standard (and strive to improve that), but I think that - by pointing out grades (assuming that the standard was strictly applied in assigning those greeds) that seem generous - I am doing that.

 

Overstreet's standard doesn't simply list which types of defects are allowable in the various grades, it also specifies what quantity and what severities are allowed within those grades. You didn't address quantity nor severity. You weren't specific enough.

 

 

To get the kind of measurements you seek, I would agree that a better scan is required.

 

A better scan is necessary to see defects not visible in the scan, and it's also necessary to verify that things you think you can see in the scan really are defects. However, we can still use this scan as a grading example because you've identified a bunch of defects that you feel are legitimate. I'm willing to go with you on that if you're able to list more than defect types--we also need defect counts and severity measurements to put it into the right place on the grading scale. You've already said that you can see them...so just look at the scan...and measure them. Why is it that you can't do that? This scan is almost the same size as a real comic, only a little bigger...so measure what you see and just deduct about 10% or 20% from the numbers, unless your computer's video resolution is set really high.

 

 

However, lacking that, I just went with my gut and had a hard time seeing that as a VF+.

 

You might be right, it could be lower than VF+, but it's neither fair nor accurate to imply another grader made a mistake if you admit you don't have all the facts, and you're also not willing to compare it with more precision against the grading stadard.

 

We can still just assume the scan shows everything and try to assign a grade to what we can see...if you're interested in working to tighten and verify your grading skills. That's why I post in these threads, to improve my grading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fan4Fan

Fan4Fan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
However, we all seem to agree that one VF+ is not necessarily the same as another.

 

So, that suggests flaws in the grading system (which have been pointed out elsewhere).

 

I don't get your point. Do you mean one CGC VF+ is not necessarily the same as another...that your VF+ is not the same as my VF+...or do you mean something else? Who were you thinking of as having graded these different VF+ comics?

 

I have seen folks on these boards say that this or that is an ugly CGC 9.0, for example.

 

That suggests to me that the grading standard is lacking something. Why should one 9.0 be considered better or worse than another?

 

You are making me work harder than I like with the requirements for precision in what I say (and I am usually accused of taking things literally, black-and-white, and being dumbfounded by others lack of descriptive acumen).

 

True, I should be using the official standard (and strive to improve that), but I think that - by pointing out grades (assuming that the standard was strictly applied in assigning those greeds) that seem generous - I am doing that.

 

Overstreet's standard doesn't simply list which types of defects are allowable in the various grades, it also specifies what quantity and what severities are allowed within those grades. You didn't address quantity nor severity. You weren't specific enough.

 

What I was saying is that Overstreet isn't specific enough. There are defects which they don't even recognize as being problems for collectors.

 

To get the kind of measurements you seek, I would agree that a better scan is required.

 

A better scan is necessary to see defects not visible in the scan, and it's also necessary to verify that things you think you can see in the scan really are defects. However, we can still use this scan as a grading example because you've identified a bunch of defects that you feel are legitimate. I'm willing to go with you on that if you're able to list more than defect types--we also need defect counts and severity measurements to put it into the right place on the grading scale. You've already said that you can see them...so just look at the scan...and measure them. Why is it that you can't do that? This scan is almost the same size as a real comic, only a little bigger...so measure what you see and just deduct about 10% or 20% from the numbers, unless your computer's video resolution is set really high.

 

Why? Because I'm lazy, of course. smile.gif

 

I don't intend to buy this book, so why should I spend my time. I posted it as a topic for discussion. I participate in some of the "grade this book" threads as a mental exercise... not necessarily to prove I know the grading standards verbatim.

 

Even if it did technically come in as a VF+, I still wouldn't buy the book because it doesn't look like one to me. I have purchased things from Overstreet Advisors that were graded F/VF that looked better.

 

However, lacking that, I just went with my gut and had a hard time seeing that as a VF+.

 

You might be right, it could be lower than VF+, but it's neither fair nor accurate to imply another grader made a mistake if you admit you don't have all the facts, and you're also not willing to compare it with more precision against the grading stadard.

 

We can still just assume the scan shows everything and try to assign a grade to what we can see...if you're interested in working to tighten and verify your grading skills. That's why I post in these threads, to improve my grading.

 

I understand this which is why I brought it to the attention of folks. Not as a means of ridicule, but to see what other folks thought.

 

What would be ideal is if

a) Better quality scans were included

and

b) There would be a checklist listing all defects

 

If we had b), then I think that that would actually lead to better standards because it would become blatantly obvious that all VF+'s are not created equal under the current standard.

 

Thanks,

Fan4Fan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
I have seen folks on these boards say that this or that is an ugly CGC 9.0, for example.

 

That suggests to me that the grading standard is lacking something. Why should one 9.0 be considered better or worse than another?

 

Ah, yah, I'd have to agree with that

 

 

What I was saying is that Overstreet isn't specific enough. There are defects which they don't even recognize as being problems for collectors.

 

I don't disagree with this, but I've also complained about this only to realize later that Overstreet's latest guide does incorporate them, although not always in enough detail. Which defects do you think they've mistakenly omitted?

 

 

I don't intend to buy this book, so why should I spend my time. I posted it as a topic for discussion. I participate in some of the "grade this book" threads as a mental exercise... not necessarily to prove I know the grading standards verbatim.

 

You should spend your time for the same reason you posted in the first place--to engage in a mental exercise. I'm not "testing" you to see if you're smart or stupid or anything, I'm challenging you, and myself at the same time since I volunteered to do the Overstreet comparative analysis if you'd do the measuring. It might seem hard at first to do this measuring and to learn the standard, but once you've done it for a few dozen hours, doing the measurements will become something you can do in seconds, and the comparison against the standards will also only take seconds. Doesn't matter whether you'd buy the book or not to me, nor does it to you, since you're just exercising...so...let's EXERCISE! 893applaud-thumb.gif

 

 

I think that that would actually lead to better standards because it would become blatantly obvious that all VF+'s are not created equal under the current standard.

 

I'll say to you the same thing I say to myself--no more complaining about the standard until you're sure you understand it! And I don't think you can understand the standards in the new Grading Guide without having studied and applied them first for a few dozen hours, if not a few hundred hours.

 

If you don't feel like measuring those defects, I'll do it for you; please comment about whether you agree or disagree and whether I've missed any:

  • I don't see as much damage on the top edge. I see one color-breaking 1/32" nick above the "T" in "Greatest" and somewhere between 4 and 6 non-color-breaking nicks that are only 1/64". All very minor defects.
  • Top left corner isn't rounded but has a 1/64" rub, top right corner isn't rounded at all but may appear that way because the interior pages poke out in such a way to de-emphasize sharpness, bottom left corner seems to have a 1/32" rounding, and bottom right corner also seems to have a 1/32" rounding.
  • Four color-breaking spine breaks ranging between 1/16" and 1/8" in length.

The wrap is negligble compared to the other defects, and I personally can't verify the color loss exists, but if you can describe where it is with some precision, I might be able to see it.

 

I'm not near my grading guide until Saturday, so I'll map these defects--and any modifications anyone has to them--to the Overstreet standards then unless somebody beats me to it. Based upon my examination of the approximately 75 CGC 9.0 and 25 CGC 8.5 slabs I own, I can see them giving it and 8.5 if the defects with the severities listed above are accurate.

 

I might not be right about that grade, but I can say that I agree with a statement Steve Borock made in these forums about a year ago...just because you undergrade, it doesn't mean you're a tight grader. I feel that a lot of people undergrade in CGC's forums just to be safe and not be viewed as another one of the overgrading masses. I can't even imagine what defects Uluru is seeing in the scan to call this book a "fine," but as always, I love hearing detailed grading analyses from anyone willing to offer them! 893crossfingers-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted

Well I did an analysis of the defects I listed against the standards in the guide and I found a weakness--the guide doesn't contain numerical severities for the "Stress Lines" category for any grade above Fine, and even Fine is screwed up. Here's what it has to say about stress lines for the Fine to Mint grades:

 

  • 10.0 down to 9.6 = none allowed
  • 9.4 to 9.2 = almost no lines
  • 9.0 = very minor accumulation of nearly imperceptible lines
  • 8.5 to 8.0 = a few almost insignificant lines allowed
  • 7.5 to 7.0 = small accumulation of light lines
  • 6.5 to 6.0 = few slight lines

NONE of those descriptors match up to the chart on page 128 which translates descriptors to numerical values until you get to the Fine grade! "Few" translates to a count of 3 to 5, and "slight" translates to 1/32" to 1/16". So according to the guide, you can't have five 1/16" stress marks until the Fine grade...which is absolutely wrong. CGC will give books a 9.0 with as many as six 1/16" spine stress marks...and going by the following pictorial example from the Overstreet guide, the guide itself isn't as strict with stress lines as the text says it is:

 

Click here for scan from 2002 Overstreet Grading Guide, page 184

 

This one is interesting because it has similar defects to the FF 25 in question--about four spine marks ranging from 1/16" to 1/8", a few nicks up top, and two blunted corners.

 

The guide does define numerical severities for corner blunting, but it's spotty! For the VF 8.0 grade, it says that "minute wear allowed" for the corners. But..."minute" isn't defined in the descriptor-to-numerical severity table on page 128 either! 893frustrated.gif However, if we go up to the NM- 9.2 grade, it says "ever-so-slight blunting" is allowed, and the word "slight" translates to 1/32" to 1/16" in the table. It doesn't appear to me that any of the defects on this FF 25 are worse than that, so we're OK for the VF grade here.

 

The lack of clarity and apparent contradiction in defining how severe stress lines can be is making it impossible for me to use the text descriptions in the guide to analyze this book!!! I'm now frustrated and must dwell on this. 893frustrated.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing